PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Ward Elections) Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,
	That the promoters of the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill which originated in this House in the last Parliament but had not received the Royal Assent may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the bill in the present session of Parliament; and the petition for the bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable to it shall be deemed to have been complied with;
	That the bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office no later than the fifth day on which the House sits after this day;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the bill presented in this House in the last Parliament;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House;
	That in the present session of Parliament the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it had passed in the last Parliament, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	Debate to be resumed on Wednesday 17 October.

Oral Answers to Questions

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Terrorism

Julian Lewis: What progress has been made on the dismantling of the structures of terrorism in Northern Ireland since April 1998.

John Reid: The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda have had a number of significant successes against terrorists recently. Through the work of the agencies that come together in the organised crime taskforce, we have also seen considerable disruption to criminal activity.
	Putting paramilitaries' arms beyond use was one of the outstanding issues discussed at the Weston Park talks last week. As the concluding statement, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, explains, progress was made. It is now for the two Governments to draw together a final package covering all the outstanding issues.

Julian Lewis: I realise that the security forces are still fighting against the structures of terrorism, as the Secretary of State says. Does he recall that during the referendum campaign on the Belfast agreement in May 1998, the Prime Minister repeatedly said in speeches and wrote in articles that it would not be enough merely to decommission weapons, but that the paramilitary structures of terrorism must progressively be dismantled? We know that, sadly, the former has not been achieved. Has any progress been made with the latter objective?

John Reid: That is our ultimate objective. We have made sure that everyone is aware of their responsibilities under the Good Friday agreement. That requires a rejection of not only the use of force but the threat of force. That point was made during the discussions at Weston Park, and it is one of the outstanding issues with which we have to deal. We will continue to do everything that we can to disrupt those elements of the paramilitaries that are involved in organised crime, and to make sure that progress is made in putting beyond use weapons that are illegally held on either side.

Harry Barnes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the guns are not silent in Northern Ireland, that beatings are on the increase, that paramilitaries continue to train, recruit and gather intelligence, that the IRA has imported £2 million worth of weapons from America recently and that in the past 18 months it has killed eight people for alleged criminal offences—offences that the IRA itself is committing? In those circumstances, should not everyone be part of a pan-decommissioning front calling for an end to the availability and use of weapons and for progress to be made in the peace process?

John Reid: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's last statement. It is an essential part of the peace process that we continue to make progress in putting illegal arms beyond use. It is opportune to pay tribute to the courage and professionalism of those who have been involved in combating some of the illegal activity, particularly members of the RUC. They, along with their partners south of the border in the Garda, have been involved in thwarting dissident activity. Recent successes have included the seizure of a significant quantity of explosives, firearms and ammunition. Charges have been brought against alleged dissidents. An example of the illegal activity is the fact that in the past financial year more than 51.5 million cigarettes were seized by Customs in Northern Ireland. In the midst of all the change, we should recognise the marvellous work that is being done by police forces north and south of the border.

Nicholas Soames: Does the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless agree that, with the prevailing uncertainty in the security situation, this would be no time to reduce the number of the security forces posted in Northern Ireland?

John Reid: As the hon. Gentleman knows, his having had some experience of such matters as a former Armed Forces Minister, I will take due cognisance of and place great emphasis on the advice that I get from the Chief Constable, the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland and other security advisers. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I would not take any steps without their advice.

David Trimble: Following on from the remarks of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), will the Secretary of State welcome President Bush's comments on decommissioning, thus demonstrating that there is broad support among all democrats for the decommissioning of paramilitary weapons? President Bush's statement shows that Sinn Fein and its handful of supporters are now completely isolated on this issue.
	Specifically on dismantling paramilitary structures, the Secretary of State referred to racketeering. Will he confirm that all the paramilitary organisations, including those that claim to be on ceasefire, are deeply involved in racketeering, and that the finance therefrom provides the main resource of those paramilitary organisations and the political parties linked to them? Surely more could be done to draw into the public domain the extent to which certain political parties are involved in and financed by racketeering.

John Reid: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, we deeply appreciate President Bush's support, as we always do, for the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. I know that the whole House will welcome his generous comments on the efforts made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. As both Prime Ministers said at Weston Park last week, if we are to implement the Good Friday agreement we need to move forward on all the issues, which obviously include paramilitary weapons.
	On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, I am sure that he will appreciate that we have paid considerable attention to paramilitary involvement in racketeering and criminality. That is one reason why in the past year we established the organised crime taskforce. The taskforce is still in its early days, but I can assure him that we will ensure that it has the motivation and resources to tackle the questions that he raised.

Kevin McNamara: We all want decommissioning to occur and arms to be put out of use as soon as possible, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, whenever people start to impose deadlines and demand that others jump through hoops, they create a deterrent to those with the arms, who do not want to be seen to be controlled by ultimatums imposed by parties with which they disagree?

John Reid: In terms of moving forward, the two Governments have made it plain through the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach that the agreement can succeed only if all parts of it are implemented together. As a Government, we will discharge our responsibilities to set that context, but I hope that all the others who are involved will reflect carefully on their responsibilities and do likewise.
	On deadlines, my hon. Friend will appreciate that neither myself nor any other individual set a deadline at the end of June, although last May, which is now more than 12 months ago, both Governments expressed the hope and belief that considerable progress would be made on all the elements of the Good Friday agreement by the end of June. That remains our aim.

Andrew MacKay: Will the Secretary of State make it abundantly clear to the House that there is only one reason for the present deadlock: the fact that decommissioning has not taken place? All other aspects of the Belfast agreement are moving forward, yet not one gun or ounce of Semtex explosive has been handed in by the paramilitaries who signed it, whether they are republicans or so-called loyalists.

John Reid: As the right hon. Gentleman and the House will appreciate, there has been some progress on the question of arms, in the sense that the arms dumps have been opened up for inspection, but he is absolutely right to say that we need more. We need arms to be put beyond use. Of course, there are other matters that we discussed last week and will continue to discuss—the two Governments will address them in the package of measures that we are currently considering—but, yes, there needs to be more progress on the issue that he raised.
	I should take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Taoiseach, to Brian Cowen, the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Government of Ireland, and to other colleagues in that Government. I believe that the co-operation between our two Governments has been the bedrock of the Good Friday agreement. I am happy to say that the relationship between us has never been stronger or closer. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we share an assessment of the way forward, which will form the basis of the package. In that context, one of the elements on which progress must be made is putting illegal weapons beyond use.

Andrew MacKay: The House will be grateful for the fact that the Secretary of State clearly wants to put pressure on the paramilitaries to decommission, but will he assure us that, in doing so, he will not jeopardise the security of the Province through further changes to policing arrangements or by reducing the armed presence or security operations?

John Reid: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall take no steps other than through consultation and with the agreement and advice of my security advisers.

Violence (Victims)

Brian White: What support his Department gives to victims of violence.

Des Browne: Like the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has a criminal injuries compensation scheme, which, in the last financial year, we funded to the tune of £47 million.
	In addition, the Government provided overdue acknowledgement of the human cost of the troubles when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) instituted for the first time a programme of support for victims of the troubles.
	More than £18.25 million has been allocated to support victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland. The support includes the establishment of a family trauma centre, the Northern Ireland memorial fund and funding for groups that provide support to victims. Support for victims who live in Great Britain was announced earlier this month, and further initiatives will be announced in the coming months.

Brian White: In paying tribute to groups that have helped victims of the troubles, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to several individuals who have not been able to access support from them? What are the Government doing to help individuals?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend makes an especially valid point. Isolation and lack of awareness of what is available are especially acute among the victims of the troubles. Consequently, the service that the family trauma centre provides is designed for individuals; those individuals whose education was disrupted by the troubles have received grants and bursaries of approximately £300,000, and the Northern Ireland memorial fund has devised schemes for individuals.

Lady Hermon: I understand that an eminent Queen's Counsel has backed the civil action being taken by the victims of the Omagh bombing. In those circumstances, are the Government prepared to give public support to, and encourage businesses to provide financial backing for, the legal fund for the Omagh victims?

Des Browne: The hon. Lady knows that a specific initiative was taken in conjunction with the local health organisation to respond to the trauma of the Omagh victims. Research has revealed the need for significant support, which has been put in place.
	The Government cannot adopt a position on civil litigation, but we understand entirely the feelings that lie behind such an action.

Marches

Gordon Prentice: What factors the Parades Commission takes into account when deciding whether to ban or re–route a march.

Jane Kennedy: As my hon. Friend may know, the Parades Commission has no statutory power to ban a parade. The factors to which the commission has regard in deciding whether to impose conditions on a procession are set out in the Public Processions Act 1998 and in the commission's statutory guidelines. It may, for example, take into account the likelihood of public disorder or damage to property, the potential impact on community relations and whether a parade is a traditional parade. In reaching a decision, the commission also takes into account the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Gordon Prentice: I understand that only 151 out of 3,400 parades have been re-routed. A tiny number of parades cause problems, yet the same parades cause them year in, year out. Should not parades that habitually cause offence and disorder and offend community relations be re-routed as a matter of course? The Drumcrees would not then happen year after year.

Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend exaggerates slightly. As always with Northern Ireland, it is important to keep matters in perspective. Last year, the Parades Commission found it necessary to restrict routes on only 130 of the 3,440 parades of which it was notified. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have consistently stated that our preferred outcome is the resolution of disputes through local agreements that reflect mutual respect for people's rights, traditions and sensitivities, thus rendering determination by the commission unnecessary.

Roy Beggs: Will the Minister join me in condemning those who took part in a republican-orchestrated attack on the RUC while it was carrying out its lawful duty of upholding a decision by the Parades Commission? In upholding that decision, the RUC made limited use of plastic bullets. Does the Minister agree that the do-gooder, naive comment by Professor Brice Dickson that the use of plastic bullets should be ended should be put to him face to face and that he should be asked to withdraw such a ridiculous statement?

David Trimble: And he should resign.

Roy Beggs: And he should resign.

Jane Kennedy: May I first place firmly on record our appreciation of the work, courage and endurance displayed by the RUC in the situation that it faces? It is important to recognise that it was serving both sides of the community in implementing the decisions of the Parades Commission.
	On the hon. Gentleman's point about baton rounds, everyone agrees that we would like to find an alternative. We are following the recommendation of the Patten report by urgently researching alternatives, but until they can be found we cannot take from police officers the ability to defend themselves from blast bombs, petrol bombs, acid bombs and live fire.

Peter Mandelson: I welcome my hon. Friend's strong expression of support for the police service in Northern Ireland. It is not responsible for creating the divisions, the sectarianism or the ensuing disorder that still blights Northern Ireland's society. Does my hon. Friend agree that, for the police to do their job in Northern Ireland, they need adequate manpower resources, in terms of the number of officers available to go on to the streets during times of disorder, and financial resources to cope with the disorder and violence and to see through the reforms resulting from the Patten legislation? Will she reassure the House that those manpower and financial resources will continue to be made available to the police in the coming years?

Jane Kennedy: I am happy to give the House those assurances. As my right hon. Friend says, policing in Northern Ireland will require additional funds during 2001–02 and in subsequent years. That is due to the specific pressures caused by sectarian tensions and parades. We are well aware of the concerns expressed about funding, and we have given assurances—I do so again today—that the RUC will have the resources necessary to continue to deliver a high-quality policing service.

Lembit �pik: As we have already heard, the RUC is primarily responsible for enforcing the determinations on marches. I hear what the Minister says about adequate resources. Is she saying, therefore, that she will make good the 117 million shortfall in resources that the RUC estimates it will require adequately to do the job that we all agree it must do? Will she confirm that specific figure?

Jane Kennedy: I will not confirm any specific figure today. My officials are continuing discussions with the Police Authority for Northern Ireland and with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, and it is likely that we shall consider carefully the proposals that they make.

Good Friday Agreement

Claire Curtis-Thomas: If he will make a statement on progress in implementing the Good Friday agreement.

John Reid: At the conclusion of the Weston Park talks, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach issued a paper setting out the progress made so far in implementing the Good Friday agreement; a copy is in the Library.
	More remains to be done in a number of key areas, but, as the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach made clear, it is now for the two Governments to draw together a final package to secure the full implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement.

Claire Curtis-Thomas: My constituents, a large number of whom are either Irish or direct descendants of Irish people, will be grateful for those words because they fully understand that the Good Friday agreement has brought great prosperity and the alleviation of many of the troubles of Ireland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only the full implementation of that policy will bring to the Irish people the rewards that they deserve?

John Reid: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Full implementation of the Belfast agreement is the only basis for lasting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and the agreement can succeed only if all its parts are implemented together. We as a Government will discharge our responsibilities and I hope that all others will do likewise. My hon. Friend will recognise that, as a Government, we are working hard in the midst of conflicting pressures and sensitivities to ensure that all the parties implement all parts of the agreement.

Nigel Dodds: Is it not the case that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary said last week that the IRA orchestrated and organised violence in Ardoyne in my constituency? In view of that breach of the ceasefire and the revelations that the IRA at the highest level was involved in importing arms, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why he continues to negotiate the future of Northern Ireland with IRA-Sinn Fein, which are in clear breach of their ceasefire, and exclude representatives of the Democratic Unionist party, which has more votes and more seats in the House? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the House to come to order.

John Reid: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I can assure him that I will, as I have over recent weeks, act on any information given to me by my security advisers, including the Chief Constable. The hon. Gentleman referred to a specific case, but information has not been put to me on it. If it is, I will consider it.
	The hon. Gentleman's second pointhis feeling that we are not meeting his own partyis of course incorrect. The Prime Minister met representatives of his party recently, including the hon. Gentleman himself. Indeed, only yesterday I wrote again to his party leader to accept two invitesone to his constituency and one to have a further meeting. The hon. Gentleman was not at the Weston Park talks for a simple reason: the talks brought together those who signed the Good Friday agreement and those who have acted in support of it. Of course, he and his colleagues are neither.

Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, since the signing of the Good Friday agreement, there have been significant troop reductions in Northern Ireland, the closure of more than 40 security installations and the highest economic growth in the UK? Is not that a powerful argument for persisting with the peace process and encouraging all parties to press ahead with the full implementation of the agreement?

John Reid: I can confirm the figures referred to by my hon. Friend. Troop levels in Northern Ireland are at their lowest for 31 years: at about 13,500, they are half what they were26,000at their height and 34 military establishments and nine joint establishments have been closed. I emphasise to him that the number of troops deployed to Northern Ireland is commensurate with the threat, and I shall continue to take advice on that from the Chief Constable and others.
	That makes the point solidly: we have to move forward on all aspects of the agreement, including putting illegal paramilitary weapons beyond use. In that context, a signal that the threat has been further reduced may enable us to take further measures. However, we must keep in step with the politics and the security situation and move hand in hand on those and all other aspects of the agreement.

John Taylor: I think that I heard the Minister correctly earlier, but will the Secretary of State confirm on the record that all necessary resources continue to be available to the RUC in protecting the law-abiding from the lawless, including, if necessary, the use of plastic baton rounds at the discretion of the Chief Constable?

John Reid: Yes, of course I will discuss the problem with the Chief Constable, and ensure that he has the financial and personnel resources to match the task.
	On the hon. Gentleman's second point, all of us in Northern Ireland want to see a situation in which the police do not have to have recourse to plastic baton rounds, but the police have recently been faced night after night with petrol bombs, acid bombs and live firing. Two hundred and forty eight police officers were injured between 1 June and 14 July, and in the two days after that an additional 38 were injured, 28 of them seriously. Every Member will understand why it is necessary to have the means between a baton and a bullet to allow the police to protect themselves. As long as that is necessary, the police will have such weapons at their disposal.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked

Engagements

John Wilkinson: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 July.

Tony Blair: This morning, I met Shimon Peres, the Israeli Foreign Minister, and I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

John Wilkinson: Does the Prime Minister believe that, following the sacking of Mr. Bob Kiley, the chairman of London Transport, by the Transport Secretary yesterday, there is strong evidence that the sacking of distinguished chairmen who have the temerity to utter unpalatable truths to the Government is becoming something of a habit? Should not we have a debate on the future of the London underground, which is of grave concern to the travelling public? At least we might then have the chance of reinstating the chairman.

Tony Blair: No, because what is important is that money and investment go into the tube as quickly as possible. If we had suspended the negotiations on the public-private partnership, there would have been a delay of about two years. That is why every other member of the board was going to resign unless Mr. Kiley withdrew his threat.

Laura Moffatt: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the charity Cancer BACUP that pain has no place with someone living with cancer or dying from cancer? Does he agree that it is important to ensure that all the professions in the health and voluntary sectors believe that it should be eliminated? Would he sign the freedom from pain charter to give it the importance that it deserves?

Tony Blair: I certainly agree with the principle set out in the charter. The additional 600 million going into the treatment of cancer in the next few years will result not just in patients being seen and treated more quickly, but in about 1,000 extra cancer specialists. Together with the extra radiographers and nurses, that will result in a substantial advance in the treatment of cancer in this country.

William Hague: Is it still the Prime Minister's view that the Government's annual report is a major innovation to be repeated every year?

Tony Blair: Before I answer the right hon. Gentleman's question, as this is his last Prime Minister's Question Time I want to say that Members on both sides of the House wish him well and good luck for the future. We shall all miss his wit and humouralthough I may not, as I was the object of most of it. Anyway, we wish him well in the future.
	In respect of annual reports, it is important that we set out the Government's achievements and lack of achievements in whichever year we are in power.

William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks about me. Debating with him at the Dispatch Box has been exciting, fascinating, fun, an enormous challenge and, from my point of view, wholly unproductive in every sense. I am told that in my time at the Dispatch Box I have asked the Prime Minister 1,118 direct questions, but no one has counted the direct answersit may not take long.
	Four years ago, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	The Annual Report is a major innovation. People are entitled to know how we are shaping up . . . This Report is part of that process. We will repeat it each year.
	The first annual report was called So what do you think? and the second was called So what are we doing? This year's seems to be called So where is it? How does the Prime Minister feel about not even keeping his promise to publish a report about keeping his promises?

Tony Blair: I confess that I never thought the right hon. Gentleman was that keen on our annual reports when we did publish thembut what we do, of course, is publish all the results of the things we have done during the year, and the things we have not done, as well. Those are the things about which the right hon. Gentleman has asked me in the more than 1,000 questions that he has asked from the Dispatch Box.

Hon. Members: Where is it?

William Hague: Where is it? is indeed the question. As the Prime Minister has abandoned the annual report as a way of holding the Government to account, what about the traditional way of holding the Government to account? What about Ministers[Interruption.] Labour Members must understand that Governments must be held to account between elections as well as at elections.
	What about Ministers taking responsibility? The Government's introduction of AS-levels has made schoolchildren's lives a misery, added to the burden on teachers and led to the extraordinary circumstances in which the Government cannot even guarantee that the results will be published on time. Which Minister will take responsibility for that?

Tony Blair: Of course we take responsibilityall of us collectively, as a Governmentfor both the publication of results and the AS-levels. The AS-levels were introduced to ensure that children were tested properly throughout their schooling; that is in common with the system in many other countries. Of course, after their introduction it is important for us to look at the way that has been done and there may well be lessons that we can learn, but I think it would be a big mistake for us to end up saying that it was not important to test children throughout their schooling and to publish the results.

William Hague: In other words, no Minister will take responsibility. AS-level students are told that if they
	do not offer an adequate attempt to answer the question or complete the task
	they will be ungraded. It is a good job that the Prime Minister is not doing AS-levels.
	No annual report, and no Minister willing to take responsibilitylet us try another form of accountability. The Prime Minister has said that he accepts the need for a proper inquiry into the foot and mouth disaster. Does he agree that a proper inquiry must be a public inquiry?

Tony Blair: I do not agree that it must be a public tribunal inquiry, for the reasons given by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, which said that it was sensible to have a different type of inquiry in order to produce an inquiry more quickly. We will have that inquiry, and we will publish the results. But we have also said, again in line with what the royal college has said, that it is better to have the inquiry after we have eradicated the disease, which must remain our No. 1 priority.
	Incidentally, in respect of the AS-levels, I did not say that no one would take responsibility; I said that we all, as a Government, take responsibility.

William Hague: Well, for the whole Government to resign immediately would be a rather extreme step to take over AS-levels. [Interruption.] It might be a welcome step, however.
	So, there is no annual report, no Minister will take responsibility for a fiasco, and no public inquiry will be held into foot and mouth despite all past precedent. Perhaps the Prime Minister will at least agree to accountability to the House after this week's vote in the House. Will he now listen to Members in all parts of the House, and adopt the proposal that Select Committee members should not be appointed by the Whips or by any party managers?

Tony Blair: I gather that the Modernisation Committee decided this morning to look into the matter. It will publish a report and we will consider it carefully.
	I simply point out that it is funny that in the 18 years of Conservative government, when the right hon. Gentleman was in office, all these great designs to reform Parliament never saw the light of day.

William Hague: My 1,123rd and final question is on the same theme of accountability. May I ask the Prime Minister about what he and I know to be the casethat allowing one Prime Minister's Question Time a week is not an adequate way of holding the Prime Minister of our country to account? Members of all parties should have an opportunity to question the Prime Minister of the day more frequently, and on a more sustained basis. Would that not be in the best interests of the Government, Parliament and public engagement in our political life?

Tony Blair: In respect of holding the Government to account, let me point out that over the four years that I have been Prime Minister I have answered questions in the House for longer than either of my two predecessors, and made more statements.
	In respect of accountability, of course we as a Government are held to account. We are held to account in the House, where, for example, the number of ministerial statements has, I think, been far in excess of the number under the previous Government, and we are held to account by the British people. We were held to account by them on 7 June. We were returned with this majority as a result of that general election.
	We will indeed miss the right hon. Gentleman's wit and humour. I hope that he is not retiring to the Back Benches as they are getting rather overcrowded at the moment. I would have thought that there was every role for him, for example as shadow Foreign Secretary. If the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were to win, he could come here and tell us about the virtues of the single currency and the rapid reaction force. Alternatively, if the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) were elected, he could come here and tell us what a dreadful idea it was and how the country would have none of it. In any event, whatever the right hon. Gentleman does, we wish him well.

Gwyn Prosser: During Dover's difficulties with asylum issues, does my right hon. Friend remember telling my local newspaper
	I also accept Dover has suffered an unfair burden?
	Taking account of local sensitivities and our recent history, does he agree that yesterday's decision, taken without any consultation or prior notification, that my local young offenders institution should be converted into a detention centre for asylum seekers was a bad decision, badly handled?

Tony Blair: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's concern and I will make sure that the relevant Minister sees him today. I understand the deep concern that there is over the issue in Dover. Therefore, it is entirely right that it be discussed with him properly.

Charles Kennedy: May I first associate the Liberal Democrats

Tony McNulty: Who cares?

Charles Kennedy: I think that public empathy out there probably cares. We associate ourselves with the good wishes that have been properly expressed by the Prime Minister to the outgoing leader of the Conservative party. We wish him well and commiserate with his successor, whoever it will be.
	Returning to the earlier question about the sacking of Bob Kiley and his role as chair of London Regional Transport, will the Prime Minister explain why it was that only 10 weeks ago he agreed with Bob Kiley's being appointed to that job, and only 10 weeks later he is in favour of sacking him?

Tony Blair: I will explain exactly why. Mr. Kiley was appointed chairman of London Transport in order to negotiate what he wanted, within the outlines of the public-private partnership, and he came back a couple of weeks ago and said that he was unable to do so. The dispute with Mr. Kiley, and, indeed, with Ken Livingstone, is not about the running of the tube as such; it is about the financing of it. We are putting billions of pounds of investment from the general British taxpayer into the underground, the largest ever investment that has been made, and we need to make sure that there is value for money and that taxpayers' money is properly used. I understand entirely why Mr. Kiley and Mr. Livingstone want to take the money and spend it as they wish, but we have a duty on behalf of the taxpayer to get value for money and that is what we will do.

Charles Kennedy: Is not the real lesson of the episode that the Prime Minister fails to understand in his second term that power devolved is not power retained? Would it not make more sense to allow the elected representatives, of whom Ken Livingstone is obviously a primary example, to make decisions, whether they be on the London underground, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, Bob Kiley, or for that matter the Select Committees of the House of Commons? To let go once in a while would be a very good reflection for the Prime Minister over the forthcoming summer recess.

Tony Blair: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Devolving the running and management of the underground is of course precisely what the devolution to the Mayor is all about, but the financing of it coming from the general British taxpayer is billions of pounds. We know that the real problem on the tube is financing the construction, the track and tunnelling.The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he is simply wrong. That is the problem that the tube has. We need investment in the capacity of the tube, and it is extraordinary that the Liberal Democrats do not want any private sector involvement in the financing of the system when that plainly offers the best value for money. We are doing this because although the running and management of the tube will, of course, be for the Mayor and Transport for London, when it involves general British taxpayers' moneynot just from London but across the rest of countrythe Treasury has a duty to ensure that it is properly spent, and we will discharge that duty on behalf of the taxpayer.

Kali Mountford: I know that the House will join me in my heartfelt concern for Peter Falconio's family while he is missing in the Northern Territory of Australia. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the Australian police, the Aborigine trackers and the people of Australia who are helping in the search for Peter? Will he also join me in asking anyone who has any evidence of where Peter might bepossibly people coming home from their holiday in the Northern Territoryto tell Scotland Yard or their local police force and help to find Peter so that this nightmare can end for the Falconio family?

Tony Blair: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. We extend our sympathy and concern to Peter's family, who must be desperately worried. We have been in touch with the Australian high commission. As my hon. Friend said, the Australian police are doing everything they can to assist, and of course I join her in asking anyone with any information to come forward and speak to the proper authorities.

Stephen O'Brien: Why do the Prime Minister and the Government persist in forcing local councils to build up to 165 new waste incinerators at the expense of far more environmentally sustainable recycling plants? For example, my constituents will be the victims of pollution from such a plant in Wrexham, which is just across the border from my constituency. Under the Prime Minister's devolution arrangements, my constituents have no powers of representation for objection at local level, and it is causing great anger.

Tony Blair: Incineration has been used by Governments for many years. In fact, it is the last method that we wish to use. First, we want to reduce waste and, secondly, we want to improve recycling. That is why we are putting substantial additional investmentfrom memory, about 160 millioninto improving recycling. Thirdly, there will be situations in which we have to incinerate. Although we regret that and wish to avoid it where we can, it is not realistic to think that we can deal with all the waste we have in any other way.

Glenda Jackson: In his meetings with the President of the United States, will the Prime Minister make it clear to him that his presidential pronouncements about his commitment to cleaning up the environment and making the world safe for democracy have done nothing but strike fear into the hearts of my constituents? Will he make it abundantly clear that they value the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States but would wish for rather more understandable commitment on the part of the President to those two issues?

Tony Blair: We remain committed to the Kyoto protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have achieved reductions of about 14 per cent. on the 1990 levels, and we will carry on doing a great deal more to meet the targets set out. We have a disagreement with the United States over this, as we have said on many occasions. We are in a position to ratify the Kyoto protocol but America does not agree with that. It is important, however, that the United States Administration have agreed that the aim of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important and right, and we are now debating the means of achieving that. I hope that we can continue the dialogue with them so that we can bridge the gap and make the discussions on this important issue succeed.

Mr. Speaker: I call Sir Michael Spicer.

Hon. Members: More ballots.

Michael Spicer: Not now.
	How will the Prime Minister square the TUC, or for that matter the Labour party, to his plans for involving the private sector in the public services? Is not such involvement antithetical to socialism?

Tony Blair: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is giving me a lesson in party management. May I say how much we welcome his contribution, as the person responsible for the Conservative leadership election, to our political debate? Of course there will be an interesting and lively debate on public service reform, but that is what politics is about, and I am confident that we shall win that debate.

Andrew Dismore: Could my right hon. Friend find time to visit the Metropolitan police training centre in my constituency to meet some of the excellent new recruits with which the training centre is now bursting at the seams? Will he also give my constituents an assurance that when those police officers leave the training school, my constituents will see a real increase in police numbers on the streets of Hendon?

Tony Blair: There is, I think, a record increasecertainly the best increase for many yearsin the number of recruits entering training in the Metropolitan police. The numbers are increasing again, after 10 years of declining, and we shall in the next few years hit our target of having the largest number of police officers that this country has seen. I pay tribute not only to those who have been recently recruited but to serving officers in the Metropolitan police area who do such an excellent job protecting our citizens.

Paul Burstow: Is the Prime Minister aware that the annual general meeting of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence is being picketed today by multiple sclerosis sufferers who are angry at a two-year delay in obtaining a decision on drugs that can make a difference to their lives? Does he accept that the institute's foot dragging has cost hundreds of MS sufferers their health and condemned them to irreversible disability?

Tony Blair: I accept entirely the frustration that people have at the delay. However, I also tell the hon. Gentleman that in a decision of this nature, which affects thousands of people suffering from MS, it is important that all the information is tested and got right. The national institute will make known its deliberations when it can; that is up to it. It is an extremely important decision to get right and has huge consequences not only for MS sufferers but for the whole of the national health service.

John Hume: May I place on recordI know that I am speaking for the vast majority of people in Northern Irelandour deep gratitude to the Prime Minister for the enormous energy, commitment and work that he is putting into resolving our current crisis? In so doing, he has revealed that he sees that problem as the greatest human problem facing this Housealthough one might not believe that, listening to some hon. Members in today's Northern Ireland Question Time. We await with great hope the package that the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach will be producing. Let us all hope that it will lead to the full and absolute implementation of all aspects of the Good Friday agreement and create lasting peace and stability on our streets.

Tony Blair: I thank my hon. Friend for those kind comments. I do not begrudge any of the time that we spend on this peace process, first, because it is so important and, secondly, because I believe that there is a chance of resolving the issues and implementing the Good Friday agreement in full, which is what everyone wishes to see. The two Governments are in agreement that it is the right package and that it covers all the outstanding issues. We believe that the package will be a fair and reasonable one that should recommend itself to all political parties. We need only look at the middle east peace process to see what happens when we stop moving forward in such processes. I believe that the package offers us the chance to overcome the remaining obstacles and give people in Northern Ireland the future that they deserve.

John Greenway: Why are the Government so reluctant to award a long-term franchise for the east coast main line to GNER, which is generally thought to have done a good job? Is it not clear that short-term franchise extensions will stifle rather than encourage much-needed investment? It is not only Bob Kiley who is out of favour: what was the point of asking a rail expert such as Sir Alastair Morton how to improve the railway only to ignore his advice?

Tony Blair: I think that being lectured by a Conservative on railway privatisation is a little bit much. It is important that we have different ways of dealing with the franchises. Some franchises may be short, while others may be longer. That is sensible, because it gives us the flexibility that we require. As for GNER and the east coast main line, that decision will be taken shortly.

Ian Lucas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who referred to Wrexham in his question. I would like to point out to him and to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that Wrexham council has recently appointed a recycling officer. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that is fully in accordance with his policy, the Labour policy, which is to re-use and to recycle?

Tony Blair: Yes, it is indeed in line with Government policy. As I explained a moment or two ago, we are increasing the funding available for recycling. That will significantly increase the amount of recycling that takes place, giving us a considerably better record than the Conservative party.

Laurence Robertson: When there is an inquiry into foot and mouth diseasebe it public or privatecould the Prime Minister ensure that one of its terms of reference is to look at the effect of the disease on non-farming businesses? My constituency has probably lost out more than most, in particular because of the cancellation of the Cheltenham racing festival, when millions and millions of pounds were lost by small businesses that could least afford it.

Tony Blair: The impact on the non-farming industry is extremely important too. That is why it is necessary to take all possible measures to try to stamp out the disease, as we have done. It remains extremely important that all parts of the farming community take the relevant biosecurity measures in terms of disinfection. The way in which the disease is still being spread is essentially through farm-to-farm movements or agricultural trade vehicles. We have given every assistance we can so that people know the measures they have to take, but the only way to make sure that we use these summer months to eradicate the disease is if the biosecurity measures are in place and followed.

Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend assure council tenants in Birmingham that if they do not wish to change their landlord, the Government will honour their commitments to bring their homes up to a decent standard by 2010? Will he ensure also that necessary resources will be made available as, under current financial predictions, the necessary resources are not being made available?

Tony Blair: First, people have the right to vote on the system they wish. Secondly, we are substantially increasing investment in housing: over the next three years or so, it will rise to somewhere in the region of 4 billion. I am aware that there are always greater demands for money, but we must put money into the health service, schools, the police and other things. We are doing what we can on housing in my hon. Friend's area and others. In respect of the proposals, it is for her constituents and others to vote upon them.

Alex Salmond: May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of his personnel policies? He sacked his Foreign Secretary, who is now a runaway success as Leader of the House. He sacked the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and now they have been restored and are held even higher in the public esteem. Yesterday, he sacked Mr. Bob Kiley whoobviously, at this ratewill stop the privatisation of the tube. Can the Prime Minister deny that he is power mad, as some people believe, and say that he is actually engaged in a very subtle demonstration of the limits of prime ministerial power and arrogance?

Tony Blair: Since the hon. Gentleman has congratulated me on my personnel changes, perhaps I can congratulate him on his; not least in respect of himself. I gather he said that he wished to have nothing whatever to do with the Westminster Parliament, since it was inconsistent with Scottish nationalism; yet, lo and behold, here he is, popping up and asking me questionsbut then, that type of double standard is nothing new from the Scottish National party.

Jane Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the plight in India of Ian Stillmanformerly of Readinga charity worker who is disabled, who has been sentenced to 10 years in prison because he was in a taxi in which cannabis was later discovered? What representations can Ministers make to the Government of India to help secure the release of Ian Stillman?

Tony Blair: We are indeed aware of Mr. Stillman's case. We are making representations and are in touch with the Indian authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep this case closely under review and that we will be in close consultation throughout with the appropriate authorities.

Jonathan Sayeed: Does the Prime Minister believe that there will be a downturn in the British economy over the next two to three years? If so, how will the Government fund their promises on education, health and the police?

Tony Blair: We are confident that we can fund those programmes as the money for them has been set aside. The hon. Gentleman will know that, as a result of the successful management of the economy by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, our public finances are in a very healthy state. Therefore, unlike the Conservatives, who want to cut investment we can put money into schools, hospitals, transport and the police.
	The other reason that we have managed to run the economy successfully is that we have avoided the age-old Conservative problem of[Hon. Members: Boom and Bust.] No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you will call time shortly, so, as the two Ronnies would say, It's goodbye from Mr. Boom, and goodbye from Mr. Bust.

Bristol Royal Infirmary Inquiry

Alan Milburn: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Bristol Royal infirmary inquiry.
	The report of the inquiry into the care and management of children receiving complex heart treatment between 1984 and 1995 is being published today. It is now available in the Vote Office. I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, for your agreement that the parents and their representatives should also have advance access to copies of the report.
	The inquiry was established in 1998 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). I want to express my thanks to Professor Ian Kennedy and his panel members, Professor Sir Brian Jarman, Mrs. Rebecca Howard and Mrs. Mavis Maclean, for doing a quite outstanding job in delivering a well considered and far-reaching report.
	Words in a report can never be enough for those families whose children died or were damaged. When I met representatives of some of the parents earlier this week I think that I was speaking for the whole House when I expressed my profound sorrow for the pain and loss the families have endured. I hope that the report at least provides an explanation, and that those families are able to take some small comfort from it.
	The report and its annexes run to some 12,000 pages. We will study the findings and the 198 recommendations with care. Today, I can outline the thrust of the inquiry's findings and some of the Government's initial responses. Our substantive response will be made in the autumn. It is right that this House and the public should have the opportunity to study the report in detail. It will be available from this afternoon on both the inquiry's website and through the Department of Health's website. I would welcome views from the public and those working in the NHS to inform our full response.
	In examining events at the Bristol Royal infirmary between 1984 and 1995, the report recognises that a great deal has changed since then. It also, quite rightly, commends NHS staff in Bristol and throughout the country for their dedication and commitment in providing care and treatment to hundreds of thousands of patients every day.
	I hope that today, above all other days, all of usacross the House, in the media and among the publicremember one simple truth: the NHS is full of good doctors, not bad ones, and of good people who are doing their best for patients, sometimes in difficult circumstances. The report rightly reminds its readers that between 1984 and 1995 staff at Bristol carried out heart surgery on 1,827 children. The great majority of those children are alive today because of the efforts of those NHS staff. As the report puts it:
	Many patients, children and adults benefited; too many children did not. Too many children died.
	In discovering what happened at Bristol, the report describes
	a tragedy born of high hopes and ambitions.
	The senior NHS staff concerned got things wrong, not least because they assumed that in time they were bound to come right. As we now know, they never did. Between 1991 and 1995, the report makes it clear that between 30 and 35 more children aged under one year died after open-heart surgery in Bristol than was typical of similar heart units elsewhere in England. The report says that that was not due to differences in the severity of the cases. While mortality rates fell throughout the rest of the country as time went on, this did not happen in Bristol.
	The report paints a picture of a hospital short of resources and short of specialist staff. Cardiac care was split between two sites; children's services played second fiddle to adult services. Power was concentrated in too few hands. The hospital was a closed world. The report describes a club culture in which problems were neither identified nor resolved. Paternalism towards patients sat side by side with rivalries between professions.
	Concerns about paediatric open-heart surgery at Bristol were first raised as early as 1986first inside the hospital, then outside, then with the Department of Health and Social Security, as it was at the time. Concerns continued to be raised but no one acted effectively to protect the welfare of the children who were patients there.
	There was a tragic combination of key clinicians failing to reflect on their own performance, senior management failing to grasp the seriousness of what was going wrong, and people in various official capacitiesincluding in the Department of Healthfailing to act. Uncertainty about who was responsible for sorting out problems meant that they were never sorted out. In the meantime children were dying who should not have died. It was left to a whistleblower, an anaesthetist in the hospital, Dr. Stephen Bolsin, to trigger the chain of events which led eventually, in 1995, to the suspension of children's heart surgery. As the report says, Dr. Bolsin is owed a debt of gratitude for what he did.
	The report is directly critical of certain individuals, including the senior doctors concerned. As the House is aware, Dr. Roylance, Mr. Wisheart and Mr. Dhasmana have already been the subject of action by the General Medical Council, but the inquiry panel made clear its determination to avoid simply pointing the finger of blame at a few individuals. I commend this approach, because the Bristol tragedy was born of deeper causes than the actions of a handful of senior clinicians and managers, wrong though they were to act as they did. The children who died and who were damaged were failed by a few people in senior positions in the hospital but, even more so, they were failed by the very system that was supposed to make them well and keep them from harm.
	If the NHS is to learn from when things go wrong, it must move beyond a culture of blame. The tenor of the Bristol inquiry report is, in my view, a significant step towards a more open and honest health service. Medicine is not a perfect science. Even the best people can make the worst mistakes. Putting right what can sometimes go wrong relies on the NHS being able to acknowledge error and having systems in place to minimise error. The absence of such an approach at Bristol, and in the wider NHS at the time, contributed directly to the tragedy that cost dozens of children their lives.
	Bristol was designated a specialist regional centre for children's heart surgery. It probably never should have been. It never performed sufficient operations to ensure safe outcomes for patients. Monitoring was virtually non-existent. Accountability was confused. There were no national standards in place. The inquiry report puts the position starkly:
	we cannot say that the external system for assuring and monitoring the quality of care was inadequate. There was, in truth, no such system.
	That was the norm for the NHS then. The events at Bristol have been a major catalyst for change since. As the report repeatedly acknowledges, since those years the NHS has moved on. Earlier this year the new Bristol Royal Children's hospital opened. The United Bristol Healthcare trust has a new, strong management team with extra cardiac staff.
	As elsewhere in the NHS, problems remainof course they dobut it is worth noting that today's survival rates for children's heart surgery at Bristol are among the best in the country. The energy and commitment that the staff, the managers and the trust board have shown in turning the service around deserve recognition and praise. I hope that the whole House will join me in doing so today.
	The NHS today is a very different health service, too. As the report acknowledges, the under-resourcing that was such a feature of the NHS then is beginning to be addressed now. The events at Bristol have spurred the Government and the medical profession to work together to put in place new standards and structures to improve quality in care. As the Kennedy report says,
	Recent developments give cause for optimism. These include statutory responsibility for the quality of health care, the development of clinical guidelines through the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the monitoring of performance through the Commission for Health Improvement.
	The report welcomes the establishment of the National Patient Safety Agency to run a single reporting system for all adverse health events. The report welcomes annual appraisal and revalidation for doctors; it recognises that a new contract for hospital consultants is being negotiated and that joint training for health professionals is being introduced. The clinical negligence system, which the report rightly criticises, will be the subject of a White Paper to be published early next year. Many of these changes, and other reforms contained in the NHS plan, are welcomed or endorsed by the report.
	As the report highlights, however, further action still is needed if we are to prevent another tragedy on the scale of Bristol's. Between now and the autumn, the Government will give the report's recommendations careful consideration. Today I can tell the House that I am taking the following steps immediately in response to the Bristol report.
	First, the report laments the lack of priority given to children's services in the NHS. It calls for the appointment of a national director of children's health care services. I have therefore appointed Professor Al Aynsley-Green, Nuffield professor of child health at Great Ormond Street hospital, to take up the post with immediate effect. His priority will be to spearhead the faster development of the first ever national standards for children's health services. Standards for children in hospital, including children with congenital heart disease, will be ready next year.
	Secondly, the report calls for patients and parents to have a greater say in the NHS and in their own care. Informed consent must be a cornerstone of a modern health service. Today we are publishing information for patients and specifically for parents about the questions that they should ask before consenting to treatment for themselves or their children. Next month we will invite views on our proposals for increased public involvement in the NHS. By April next year, every trust will have a specialist patient advocacy and liaison service in place to help patients who are experiencing problems with treatment, as part of a wider programme to inform and empower patients within the NHS.
	Thirdly, the report identifies a failure to act on concerns about services, not through a lack of data, because Bristol was awash with data. There was however, no single point where data were brought together for analysis, evaluation, dissemination, and, most important, follow-up action. For data on surgical outcomes to be published, of course, they need to be robust, rigorous and risk-adjusted. That will inevitably take time. The report does, however, recommend publication to give both NHS staff and the public accurate information. It recommends the establishment of a new independent office for information on health care performance within the Commission for Health Improvement to co-ordinate the collection and publication of data. We will action those two recommendations. In so doing, we will ensure that the new office works in tandem with the medical organisations that have been pioneering improvements on data collection about clinical outcomes.
	Fourthly, the report criticises confusion in regulation and accountability in the NHS. It recommends the establishment of an overarching bodythe council for the regulation of health care professionsto ensure that the individual professional regulatory bodies act in a more consistent manner. That is in line with a similar commitment that we made last year in the NHS plan. We will action that recommendation, following consultation, alongside our proposals to reform the General Medical Council in the NHS reform and decentralisation Bill later this year.
	Fifthly, the concern is expressed in the report that NHS managers should also have responsibility for maintaining standards and protecting patients. It recommends the establishment of a new regulatory body for NHS managers. We will consider that proposal, but in the meantime, we will seek to develop a new code of professional conduct for NHS managers in conjunction with their professional associations. I will announce the further steps that we will take to strengthen safeguards for patients when we publish our full response in the autumn.
	Professor Kennedy and his panel have provided us with a report that builds on what is now being achieved, but the ambition is bigger still: to build a new culture of trust, not blame, in the NHSan NHS where there is greater partnership between patients and professionals; where lines of accountability are clear; where there is openness about mistakes; where services are designed from the patients' point of view; and where safety for patients always comes first.
	None of that can ever make good the loss experienced by the Bristol parents. Throughout the inquiry, they have acted with great dignity and purpose. Their determination has been, as ours must now be, to see some good come out of the events at the Bristol Royal infirmary. As one parent put it to me earlier this week, There are no winners from Bristol. We are all losers. I just hope that future generations can be the winners. I hope that through this report the families will gain at least some consolation from the knowledge that, over time, the lessons learned from what went wrong for their children will help us to prevent it from happening again to any other children.
	In framing its recommendations, the inquiry panel said that its aim was
	to build a bridge between the lessons of the past and the NHS of the future [so] Bristol will be remembered not merely as a synonym for tragedy but also as a turning point for the NHS.
	It is for usall of usto ensure that is indeed the case. I commend the report to the House.

Liam Fox: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for making a copy of it available to the Opposition in advance. I also thank the inquiry team for making the report available to us in advance and for all its hard work in producing such an excellent report. It would be verging on insulting its great effort to try to make any pretence of a definitive response this afternoon, yet very major issues are involved, and parents and professionals will rightly want them to be fully explored in Parliament. So I begin by asking the Secretary of State whether he will give an undertaking now that, having had time to reflect on those issues during the summer, the Government will make time available soon after the recess to debate them fully in the House in Government time.
	The report says that learning from error, rather than seeking someone to blame, must be the priority to improve safety and quality. That is a much easier concept for hon. Members to accept than it is for many of the parents who have lost their children so tragically; but however understandable a part of human nature wanting to attach blame may be, it is our job to ensure that we minimise the risk of such events being repeated elsewhere. We need to determine which errors came from individuals, which came from specific systems and conditions in Bristol and which were endemic in the culture of the NHS. Of course, it very easy for us to do that with the benefit of hindsight.
	The report says:
	At the time while the paediatric cardiac service was less than adequate, it would have taken a different mindset from the one that prevailed on the part of the clinicians at the centre of the service and senior management to come to that view. It would have required abandoning the principles which then prevailed, of optimism, of 'learning curves' and of gradual improvements over time. It would have required them to adopt a more cautious approach rather than muddling through. That this did not occur to them is one of the tragedies of Bristol.
	We must not be too hasty in our judgment of them, or judge them by the massive advances in medical culture that have occurred in the past decade.
	Clearly, however, some problems could and should have been recognised. Effective teamwork did not always exist at the BRI. The report says:
	All the professionals involved in the PCS service were responsible for this shortcoming.
	Those in positions of clinical leadership must bear the responsibility for this failure.
	We also had the problem of the split site, which meant that cardiologists, as opposed to cardiac surgeons, could not be effectively involved in intensive care. It is worth pointing out to the House that the cardiologists in Bristol were extremely well regarded by their fellow professionals and by parents throughout the south-west.
	As the Secretary of State pointed out, it was not simply the outcomes in Bristol which should have raised the alarm, but the growing gap between Bristol and other centres. Between 1988 and 1994 the mortality rate at Bristol was roughly double that elsewhere in the UK for five out of seven years. That mortality rate failed to follow the downward trend in other centres. The Secretary of State mentioned statistics relating to children under one; the excess death rate was even higher for children under 30 days. It is clear from the evidence that there was no excuse for that on a case-mix basis. Around 35 more children died than might have been expected, and each individual was a tragic and irredeemable loss.
	We will reflect on the responses that the Secretary of State has made today. Will he publish the job specification for the national director of children's health care services, so that we can all see exactly what is expected of him?
	Will the Secretary of State think again about his proposals on consent and information, and go further? The report says that
	the sense is gained that informing patients and gaining their consent was regarded as something of a chore by surgeons.
	I believe that that has changed dramatically in recent years, but surely in an ever more protocol-driven medical world, there is a strong case for introducing standardised consent forms at least for non-emergency procedures so that all patients and their parents will know in advance what to expect from surgery, what to expect after the operation, what the complications may be and what the likely outcomes are. As individual users of the health service, surely we have a right to know what to expect of it.
	Will the Secretary of State consider going even further with his plans for a health care performance office? This country requires a truly independent academic institute able to develop a standardised methodology of determining outcome. If we cannot properly measure outcomes, we cannot make rational choices in health care in this country as in any other western country.
	We will need more time to consider some of the more contentious recommendations: the abolition of clinical negligence litigation and the common terms of employment for doctors, nurses and managers, to name but two. It is worth the House bearing in mind the fact that, in the words of the report,
	The story of the paediatric cardiac surgical service in Bristol is not an account of bad people. Nor is it an account of people who did not care, nor of people who wilfully harmed patients.
	It is an account of people who cared greatly about human suffering, and were dedicated and well-motivated. Sadly, some lacked insight and their behaviour was flawed. Many failed to communicate with each other, and to work together effectively for the interests of their patients.
	Finally, in paying tribute to the courage and steadfastness of the parents of those patientssome in my constituency and many nearbythe greatest service that we can do them is to take Professor Kennedy's report away and reflect on it not in anger, but with the determination to make sure that those precious and irredeemable losses are not repeated elsewhere.

Alan Milburn: I thank the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) for the content and tone of his response. He is correct to say that the report is large. As he knows, the body of the report runs to some 500 pages and the annexes are much longer still. There are 198 recommendations. Some are small recommendations; some are fundamental and far reaching. They require proper scrutiny, and time is needed to enable us to study them as we should.
	On the possibility of a debate, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments. I have no objection, but it is a matter for the business managers. If we can arrange a debate, clearly we should.
	The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about looking back with the benefit of hindsight. Professor Kennedy and his panel reflect much on that in their report. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that the norms and behaviour that were accepted then are at variance with the current position. It is also true that mistakes were made even within the norms prevailing then. As we discuss these issues, it is important to recognise how far things have moved on in just a short time. I welcome the attitude of individual doctors and the medical profession, and the recognition that the culture of the past can no longer pertain in the NHS of today.
	With regard to cardiologists, the situation was even worse than the hon. Gentleman describes. At the time, no single paediatric cardiac surgeon specialising in that discipline was available. That may explain some of the difficulties that many of the parents subsequently encountered.
	On the job specification for the national director, I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know the details. On consent forms, we have already developed a model consent form which has been out for consultation. By 1 October this year we expect to have a finalised version in place. That is needed not just in some hospitals in the NHS, but across the entire NHS.

Frank Dobson: I join my right hon. Friend and the shadow Secretary of State in expressing my sorrow about what happened to the children, my concern for the parents, and my admiration for the steadfastness of the parents who struggled long and hard for the inquiry. I hope that they will find the outcome in some way satisfactory.
	As both previous speakers have said, what happened was not the product of bad people. It involved good and caring people. That is a measure of just how awful the arrangements in the NHS were at the time for setting and monitoring standards of performance. There was no setting of standards nationally, locally, managerially or professionally, nor was there any monitoring of standards. That is largely why those events occurred. My right hon. Friend is no doubt as pleased as I am that the report states that there is cause for optimism because of changes that have subsequently been made to start establishing and monitoring standards.
	My right hon. Friend rightly gave great prominence to the problem of the blame culture. The report makes it clear that if improvements are to be made, all the professionals and managers must be open and willing to report when things go disastrously wrong or when near-misses occur. They must accept that they may have been at fault, and they must apologise for what has happened and publish outcomes. All that will be necessary, but I am convinced, as the inquiry was clearly convinced, that it will not happen while the possibility of litigation for clinical negligence continues to exist.
	I hope that when the Government have completed their consideration of the report, they will agree with the inquiry recommendations and rid the national health service of the threat of clinical negligence litigation, which does much harm and encourages the blame culture.

Alan Milburn: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his contribution. I should like to place on record my thanks, as well as those of the whole House and people in Bristol, to him for his courage in establishing the public inquiry. Let us remember that the decision was extremely controversial when it was made, but it has proved, with the benefit of hindsight, to be absolutely right.
	My right hon. Friend was right about the setting of standards. In the report, Kennedy was extremely critical of a hands-off approach in the national health service. In fact, there were two lines of accountability in the NHSclinical and managerial. As my right hon. Friend knows, because the two lines never met, problems relating to clinical outcomes and surgical mistakes were never gripped as one hopes that they would be nowadays.
	My right hon. Friend was right about publishing outcomes, but he knows as well as I do that the science of ensuring that the data that we publish are rigorous is pretty rudimentary. There is an awfully long way to go to ensure that they command confidence not only in the professions, butin a sense, this is more importantamong patients. It is pointless to publish information that is inaccurate and gives a misleading impression.
	Only yesterday, I had the pleasure of meeting the cardiac surgeons committee. I spoke to Mr. Ash Pawade from Bristol, who, as my right hon. Friend knows, is a surgeon who specialises in children's heart surgery and has a reputation that is not only national but international. Like the committee, I am convinced that great progress is being made in respect of the ability to publish rigorous data that will properly inform patients and professionals, and in which we can all have confidence.
	On my right hon. Friend's final point, it now seems right to review the issue of clinical negligence and its operation. I have some sympathy with his comments. I am sympathetic to the position of ordinary doctors and of surgeons in particular. Day in, day out, while we talk so easily about getting rid of the blame culture, they face the threat of being dragged through the courts as part of a clinical negligence claim. In the end, it seems difficult to reconcile the idea of openness in the national health service with the threat of legal action. We must consider the matter and keep it under review. Indeed, I have asked the chief medical officer to chair a committee of experts to examine it. We will introduce a White Paper in the new year that will, I hope, make recommendations for radical reform.

Evan Harris: I want to place on record my sympathy with the situation of the families from Bristol, and pay tribute to them and their action group for their persistence in setting up the inquiry and in continually contributing to it, thereby enhancing its status. I join the Secretary of State in commending his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), for his foresight in setting up an inquiry which was not narrow but which had a very wide remit. I want also to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) for his assiduous work in asking questions both locally and in this place.
	I thank the Secretary of State and the inquiry for their courtesy not only in allowing me the opportunity to be shut in a room with the Conservative spokesman for an hour to read and digest a 500-page report with 11,000 pages of annexes, but for the extensive nature of the report and the wide-ranging recommendations that it makes.
	We believe that credit is due to the Government for already having implemented some quality control mechanismsand the Commission for Health Improvement and clinical governance. We welcome the steps that they have taken so far. However, my fear, which is reflected in the view of the inquiry team, is that the case is not isolated and that similar circumstances are arising elsewhere. As the Secretary of State so rightly said, it is a system problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the figures suggesting that while 30 to 35 babies died unnecessarily in Bristol, as many as 25,000 avoidable deaths nationwide may have been caused by errors in medical care? Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore accept that a culture change is needed to tackle the macho style of medicine, which is based on individualism rather than team work? Does he also accept that protection for the whistleblower remains inadequate in a system where, for example, junior doctors rely on the patronage of senior doctors to get promotion?
	I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State's response to the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but will he go further? The report is clear about the impact of the recommendations on the tort system of medical negligence. It states:
	Clinical negligence litigation, as a barrier to openness, should be abolished.
	It stresses that the NHS
	must promote openness and preparedness to acknowledge errors and learn lessons.
	It also states that
	clinical negligence is part of the culture of blame. It should be abolished.
	It recommends the introduction of
	an alternative administrative system of compensating those who suffer harm arising from medical care.
	That is no-fault compensation. I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify that the expert panel's scope will include the ability to implement the recommendation for a switch to no-fault compensation for which my hon. Friends have previously called.
	Does the Secretary of State accept the need for not only patient bodies but the public to
	be embedded in the structures of the NHS and for that culture to permeate all aspects of healthcare?
	Will he assure us that he will be able to deliver that after the abolition of community health councils and health authorities?
	Providing misleading performance data in the absence of clarification is unhelpful. Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the role of referring clinicians and commissioners, who failed in the case that we are discussing to deal with patients' questions and check outcomes? How does he expect those roles to be tackled when local public health advisory functions are dissolved?
	Does the Secretary of State accept the inquiry team's emphasis on public service ethos? Does he welcome the report's recommendation that continued extra funding is required because quality costs, especially consultant expansion? If that is understood, the children will not have died in vain.

Alan Milburn: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. On his last point, the report rightly acknowledges the contrast between previous under- resourcing and current investment. Professor Kennedy rightly calls for the investment to be sustained. That is music to my ears. I agree that it is the right thing to do, and I hope that we can achieve it.
	Let me consider some of the hon. Gentleman's other substantive points. He mentioned a macho style and the merits of whistleblowing. Dr. Bolsin did people an enormous favour. However, the need for whistleblowers is a sign not of success but of failure. We want a national health service that can blow its own whistle if necessary, and be honest with people.
	We, too, should be honest. It is easy for Members of Parliament to criticise. Professor Kennedy makes the important point when he reminds the report's readers that these heart operations are incredibly complex. When a baby's heart is operated on, it is the size of a walnut. Such an operation requires dexterity, expertise and skills at which most of us can only wonder. We must therefore be cautious when apportioning blame, although we must acknowledge that mistakes were made and that big cultural changes must be effected in the NHS. I hope and pray for a time when we do not need whistleblowers in the NHS because it publishes validated, rigorous information that commands confidence with the public and professionals. The report goes some way towards achieving that.
	The chief medical officer's committee will consider the merits and disbenefits of no-fault compensation, which is not as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
	Professor Kennedy is right about embedding the patient's and, indeed, the public's voice in the NHS. He explicitly makes the point that if patients are to be better informed, their voices need to be heard inside the NHS, not outside it.

Valerie Davey: I thank my right hon. Friend for his important statement and welcome the report's in-depth study of complex circumstances. However, before we look to the future, I ask the House to join me and all hon. Members whose constituents have suffered in the tragedy in extending sympathy to the parents and families of those who died or were seriously disabled.
	I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that, as he continues with the Department to improve the NHS further, the experience of those families is never forgotten.

Alan Milburn: I join my hon. Friend in extending the sympathy of the Governmentindeed, of the whole Houseto the families concerned. I also thank her for all her work, which has been widely taken into consideration during the past few years in dealing with some of these issues. Yes, it is important that we do not lose sight of the families' expertise. We owe them a great debt of gratitude. It would have been easy for them simply to pursue a case against the national health service in court but, instead, they have quite legitimately raised concerns about the operation of the NHS.
	When I met representatives of the families earlier this week, I was powerfully struck by the fact that, in the end, they wanted some fairly simple things: an understanding and an explanation of what had happened to their families and, most important of all, an assurance that it would not happen to other families. That selflessness is something that we can only commend.

Graham Brady: Does the Secretary of State agree that, in reducing mortality rates for children's cardiac surgery, it is essential to have not only the best possible performance in the United Kingdom but the best performance that can be achieved? Will he tell the House how this country compares to other developed countries, whether we are near the top of the league, and whether there is anything that we can learn from overseas?

Alan Milburn: There are, as always, lessons to be learned from elsewhere in the world. As I said earlier, we have some of the most world-renowned paediatric cardiac surgeons in this country. That is something that we should trumpet loud and clear. In many ways, we provide children's heart surgery that is up there with the best, and we must make sure that it continues to be so. That is why we must keep providing new investment, and ensuring that we take advantage of the way in which technology and treatments are moving forward. As I have said many times in the House, one of my personal top priorities is to ensure that heart disease services for children and adults improve. That requires not only more investment but certain changes to the way in which health care is being delivered, and we will continue relentlessly to pursue that in the years to come.

Jean Corston: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for the prompt way in which he has responded to some of the recommendations made by Professor Kennedy and his inquiry team. I also reiterate the thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for setting up the inquiry and, most of all, for making it a public inquiry, because that did so much to restore the confidence in the process that we were putting in place of the parents whose children so tragically died. I would also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for confirming that the events surrounding this tragedy were entirely atypical of what goes on in the NHS in Bristol every day of the year.
	Will my right hon. Friend pay particular attention to the role of the chief executive of a health care trust, and confirm that the chief executive should be the court of last resort for members of staff who want to raise concerns? They should be able to raise those concerns in an atmosphere free of stigma, and the final result should not end up involving shooting the messenger, as it did, sadly, in Bristol.

Alan Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend about the public inquiry. Public inquiries are not easy, as Professor Kennedy and his panel found, but they have conducted this one with great aplomb. They have written a report that is not only an easy read but extremely well considered, and I pay tribute to them once again.
	It is absolutely right that the chief executive should be the court of last appeal, and the chief executive of the trust in Bristol, Mr. Hugh Ross, has introduced a new system for the reporting of concerns. There is a whistleblowing system in place, and a means of raising concerns at various levels in the managerial hierarchy. However, Mr. Ross has quite rightly retained the prerogative for individual members of staff who are concerned about raising an issue with their direct line manager to raise it with him personally. That is a good idea, and it speaks for the real progress that has been made in Bristol over the past few years.

Nick Harvey: I commend the Secretary of State on his statement and the steps that he announced in it and echo the appreciation of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who set up the inquiry. As one of those who campaigned for and gave evidence to it, I welcome its report, which I believe is of sufficiently broad scope to help those parents who feel that light needs to be shed on events at Bristol to enable them to understand and come to terms with what happened.
	The Secretary of State drew a distinction between clinical and management accountability. He said, The children were failed by the very system that was supposed to make them well, and that accountability was confused. On management accountability, will the right hon. Gentleman give further thought to how management at all levels of the NHS can be persuaded to understand that it must be open and accountable? When Members of Parliament such as the hon. Members for Bristol, East (Jean Corston) and for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey), myself and others started to ask questions on the affair, the shutters were pulled down and we were given misleading answers. Perversely, that caused me to take a far greater interest than I would otherwise have taken.
	All areas of the NHS must be open for legitimate scrutiny from Members of Parliament, the media and elsewhere, or mistakes will turn into tragedies and tragedies will turn into scandals.

Alan Milburn: I agree with some of those sentiments and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his role in handling the consequences of the Bristol tragedy.
	The hon. Gentleman is in many ways right about the way that managers behave. They have a pretty difficult job. They have to be accountable to me and, therefore, accountable to the House. That must be right in a public service. They are also accountable to their local communities and to representatives of local communities. That must be right too.
	This is a two-way street. We sometimes talk pretty glibly about partnerships between patients and professionals and so on and so forth, as if rights and responsibilities flow only one way. They do not. If patients and professionals are to work more in partnership, that places a greater onus and a greater responsibility on the patient. If informed consent has been given, the patient has signed a contract with the professional. That changes some of the relationships. That is true, too, in terms of the relationship between Members of Parliament, public representatives and the NHS, but, in broad measure, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

Win Griffiths: Like other Members, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on instituting the public inquiry. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on making his statement to the House and responding so positively and quickly on crucial points.
	My interest arose out of a tragedy that struck two families in my constituency and, listening to what has been said, I was reminded of the replies that I got from the trust, which amounted to saying, Things are very difficult and great skills are involved, but, fundamentally, there are no problems. We know from the report that there were serious problems in Bristol.
	I appreciate what has been said about paediatric services, but from my own experience and from what other Members have told me, I think that there is still a wider problem in the health service with accepting that there must be an entirely new approach to those problems. I hope that my right hon. Friend will undertake to bring together health service clinicians and those who are involved with these matters to talk through what is needed and ensure that such tragedies cannot occurnot just in paediatric and cardiac services, but right across the health service.

Alan Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend's comments, but he should not underestimate the extent to which there has been movement over the past few years. I met the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons yesterday and it is about to publish its latest outcome data, which are retrieved from its member surgeons. The society told me about a survey of its members on whether they support the open publication of outcome data so that those data are seen not just by the profession but by patients. Eighty per cent. of the cardiac surgeons surveyed supported open publication. That is a huge movement from where we were just four or five years ago. It expresses a recognition in the medical profession and among individual doctors that the closed world that epitomised Bristol during those tragic years will not do nowadays. Things have moved on. The important thing to realise is that it is not just the Government who have moved it on, but the profession.

Andrew George: I echo the appreciation of right hon. and hon. Members for the inquiry and the manner in which it was undertaken. I agree that the primary emphasis should now be on looking forward, learning lessons and taking action. I seek the Secretary of State's advice about the relevant cases that fall outside the reference period of the inquiry, such as that of Mr. and Mrs. Barnes in my constituency, whose son William died in 1983 following an operation by Mr. Wisheart. Like many others, they are anxious to find out more about what happened before the reference period. They seek the support of the Secretary of State and his officials to find out what happened outside that period. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would advise on that.

Alan Milburn: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. If it is helpful, I will contact the inquiry secretariat to see what information they have gathered during the inquiry, which has been going on for three years, and whether it is relevant to his constituents. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know, and if he is unhappy with that, we can think about how best to raise the matter.

David Hinchliffe: Are there not some important parallels between what happened in Bristol and the clinical problems that have occurred elsewhere? I am thinking in particular of the case of the surgeon Christopher Ingolby in my area. I know that my right hon. Friend is familiar with the case. Clinicians and managers were aware of serious problems for some time, but they were not made public. Patients and their families were kept in the dark. The Secretary of State has rightly mentioned key reforms, which have overtaken events and will markedly improve things, but one piece of the jigsaw is perhaps missing. Public involvement in and scrutiny of the health service could pick up some of the concerns that are known among professions, nursing staff and managers, but never see the light of day elsewhere. Could my right hon. Friend say a little more about public involvement?

Alan Milburn: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are common factors in many of these horrendous cases, not just in Bristol but elsewhere. Usually, the common factor is that people in the hospital and the NHS environment around the hospital have known that there has been a problem, but the patients and their families have not known. We must change that.
	I have heard people say that the problem in Bristol was that there were no data, so no one knew what was going on and there were no measures to assess how well a surgeon was doing against the national average. That is not true. Data were available, and had been developed by surgeons themselves. We must publish information more openly, so that the public, local GPs and the primary care trusts, as well as the doctors in the hospitals, know what is going on.
	Two years ago, we published for the first time clinical indicators of death rates following surgery. The data are raw and rudimentary, but none the less are a significant step in the right direction and will make patients more aware of what is going on in their local health service. We must do more of that in the future, but we can only do so in conjunction with the medical profession.
	On the issue of public scrutiny, Kennedy is pretty clear and explicit that that is where we must make changes. We must not just open up the national health service to make information more available, but get the public in at the heart of the service.
	Kennedy comments on the existing structure of community health councils and on our proposals in the last Parliament for patient forums. We shall return to that shortly, but I think there is an important lesson to be learned from all this: if we are genuinely to have a national health service that is focused on the needs of patients, we must have more power for patients.

Gisela Stuart: My right hon. Friend rightly points out that we need to learn for the future from inquiries such as this, so that such mistakes are not made again. He also draws attention to the availability of data, and the way in which they were analysed.
	I understand that the report reaches strong conclusions about the number of operations that have been performed in a safe environment. Before too long my right hon. Friend will have to make a decision about the future of heart transplant centres, and part of those data will no doubt influence it. May I urge him not just to look at the number of individual operations performed by an individual surgeon, but to pay due attention to the needs of the team work involved and the collective activity that provides the necessary expertise? Will he treat the data holistically, rather than in a mechanistic way?

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point, which I know is of great concern to her constituents and those of many other Membersnot just in Birmingham but, as she will know, in Sheffield and Manchester.
	Real dilemmas are involved. There is, for instance, the dilemma of having to choose between maintaining a local serviceto which Kennedy refers explicitlyand ensuring that patient safety comes first. My accountability to the House means that I must ultimately be accountable for patient safety, and patient safety must come first in the reaching of these difficult decisions.
	My hon. Friend is aware of the state of play. I assure her and others that no final decisions have been made, and that before any are made there will be open and full consultation.

Howard Stoate: My right hon. Friend has pointed out that it was not so much a lack of data as a lack of monitoring that led to the tragic events in Bristol. That extends well beyond surgical outcomes. Dr. Harold Shipman managed to kill many of his patients; data must have been available, but no one had monitored the fact that many more patients were dying in his surgery than in any other surgery in the land, because it is extremely rare for a patient to die in a doctor's surgery.
	Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to how monitoring might be extended well beyond surgical outcomes, across the whole range of primary care services? Has he given any thought to what sort of data might be published and how they could be made accountable and meaningful, so that patients could judge the whole range of NHS services rather than just surgical outcomes?

Alan Milburn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. There is a huge amount of data around; the problem is that those data are often pretty rudimentary, and are not integrated.
	The hospital episode statistics data that we collect identify deaths in hospital, particularly deaths following surgery. What we do not have in the NHS is a means of collecting data relating to deaths outside hospital, so we give a rather false impression when we publish some of the statistics. However, some of the information is available through the Office for National Statistics, and we are engaged in a project to establish how we can best integrate ONS and HES data to give a rather more rounded picture of mortality rates.
	I support the Kennedy recommendation for all the responsibility to be put offshore from the Department of Health and, in a sense, from the medical profession, but for work to be done in conjunction with the profession through the new office in the Commission for Health Improvement. That will co-ordinate collection and publication of information.

Julie Morgan: I welcome the report and the recommendations, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the responsibilities of the new national director of children's health services cover England alone? If that is so, can he ensure that the director liaises with the National Assembly for Wales? I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware that children in Wales who need heart surgery must travel to centres in Englandin many cases, to the one in Bristolwhereas the cardiological investigation will take place in Wales. It is important that there be no loophole. Can my right hon. Friend ensure that the new national director liaises closely with the National Assembly for Wales?

Alan Milburn: I can certainly give that undertaking. My hon. Friend is right that the new national director applies to the NHS in England. There are other arrangements for Wales but given the flow of patients from Wales to England it is important that there be contact between the two organisations.

Stephen McCabe: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement on this sad affair. Given that the report by the National Specialist Commissioning Advisory Group predates the findings of the inquiry by quite a considerable time, will he give an assurance that he will not make any decision on the findings of the NSCAG report until the full implications of the inquiry have been properly considered? Will he make the NSCAG and inquiry reports available to hon. Members, so that we can consider the findings in tandem before crucial consultations and decisions are arrived at?

Alan Milburn: On NSCAG, I have nothing much to add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart): clearly, we will need to ensure that the implications of Kennedy are understood before we make any decision. That must be right. All I can say is that final decisions on the matter are some way off.
	On the report from NSCAG, I will write to my hon. Friend.

Points of Order

John Greenway: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister's questions, I asked about the Government's intentions with regard to the east coast main line franchise. The Prime Minister appeared not to know, but I subsequently discovered that at 3.30 this afternoon the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions issued a press release extending GNER's east coast main line franchise for only two years. That is a significant departure from the recommendation that I understand he received from the Strategic Rail Authority, which apparently recommended that GNER be given a new 20-year franchise.
	Surely the matter is of such importance to hon. Members, and we are so near the summer recess, that the Secretary of State should have come here to make a statement, so that we could ask him why the Government have done that. They have shunted the upgrade of that important strategic route into the sidings for at least two more years, and thrown into complete uncertainty not only passenger use of the line but the whole future of the east coast railway.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Statements are, of course, the responsibility of the Minister concerned, but I am sure that hon. Members are aware that Mr. Speaker has made it plain that he likes important statements to be made in the Chamber.

Kevin Brennan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to bring mobile phones into the Chamber? In the middle of the important and serious statement by the Secretary of State for Health, the mobile phone of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) went offI am afraid that he has now left the Chamber. Given that there is a place for him to hang his sword, could not a place be provided for him to hang his mobile phone before he comes into the Chamberand if not, could instructions be given for the tunes that we hear in the middle of such serious statements to be less annoying?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The ruling on the use of mobile phones is clear: if they are in the Chamber they must be switched off.

BILLS PRESENTED

Marine Wildlife Conservation

Mr. John Randall, supported by Mr. Peter Atkinson, Mr. Henry Bellingham, Andrew Bennett, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Colin Breed, Mrs. Helen Brinton, Mr. John Gummer, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Mr. Anthony Steen and Dr. Richard Taylor presented a Bill to amend the law relating to nature conservation and the protection of wildlife in respect of the marine environment; to provide enforcement powers for marine wildlife conservation purposes to competent marine authorities; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed [Bill 8].

Patents Act 1977 (Amendment)

Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, supported by Mr. Keith Simpson, Mr. Oliver Letwin, Hugh Robertson, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. Mark Prisk, Mr. David Heath, Mr. Jonathan Djanogly, Dr. Andrew Murrison, Mr. Paul Goodman, Mr. Hugo Swire and Mr. Andrew Turner presented a Bill to amend the Patents Act 1977 to enable a court to award exemplary damages in an action for infringement of a patent: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November, and to be printed [Bill 9].

Age Equality Commission

Ms Candy Atherton, supported by Jim Knight, Andrew George, Linda Perham, Roger Berry, Linda Gilroy and Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an Age Equality Commission to advise the Government on discrimination issues in relation to older people: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 10].

Home Energy Conservation

Dr. Desmond Turner, supported by Mr. Don Foster, Sir Sydney Chapman, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mr. David Drew, Mr. David Chaytor, Matthew Taylor, Joan Ruddock, Mr. David Lepper, Mr. Martin Salter and Llew Smith presented a Bill to make further provision about energy conservation in relation to residential housing; to make further provision about the eradication of fuel poverty; to provide for the establishment of registration and licensing schemes for houses in multiple occupation; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 11].

Pension Annuities (Amendment)

Mr. David Curry presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the purchase of annuities in respect of private and personal pensions, defined contribution and additional voluntary contribution pension schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 12].

Employee Share Schemes

Mr. Mark Lazarowicz, supported by Mr. John McFall, Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Linda Gilroy, Ms Meg Munn, Mr. Mark Hendrick, Jim Dobbin, Mr. Ian Davidson, Mr. David Miliband, Mr. Tony Lloyd, John Barrett and Mr. Andrew Love presented a Bill to make provision relating to employee share schemes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 13].

Industrial and Provident Societies

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas, supported by Andy Love, Mike Gapes, Doug Naysmith, Gillian Merron, Ken Purchase, Phil Hope, Andy Reed, John McFall, Ian Davidson, Paul Goggins and David Taylor presented a Bill to enable the law relating to societies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 to be amended so as to bring it into conformity with certain aspects of the law relating to companies; to amend the procedure whereby such a society may convert itself into, or amalgamate with or transfer its engagements to, a company; to permit a registered society whose business is conducted for the benefit of the community to provide that its assets are dedicated permanently for that purpose; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 14].

Food Labelling

Mr. Eric Pickles, supported by Mr. David Drew, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mrs. Ann Cryer, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Bill Rammell, Mr. Charles Hendry, Mr. Ian Davidson, Alistair Burt, Mr. Nigel Jones, Mr. John Hayes and Mr. Owen Paterson presented a Bill to make further provision for relevant information about food, including information about the country of origin and standards of production of that food, to be made available to consumers, by labelling, marking or in other ways; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November, and to be printed [Bill 15].

Legalisation of Cannabis

Mr. Jon Owen Jones, supported by Ms Diane Abbott, John Austin, Tony Banks, Jeremy Corbyn, Paul Flynn, Dr. Ian Gibson, Mr. Mike Hancock, Dr. Brian Iddon, Lynne Jones, Austin Mitchell and Dr. Jenny Tonge presented a Bill to legalise and regulate the sale, supply and use of cannabis for recreational and therapeutic purposes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 October, and to be printed [Bill 16].

Copyright, Etc. and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement)

Dr. Vincent Cable, supported by Richard Burden, Bill Cash, Brian Cotter, Ed Davey, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Paul Marsden, Andrew Miller, Austin Mitchell, Lembit pik and Nicholas Winterton presented a Bill to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 in respect of criminal offences, search warrants, powers of seizure and orders for forfeiture; to amend the Trade Marks Act 1994 in respect of search warrants and powers of seizure; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 November, and to be printed [Bill 17].

Housing (Wales)

Mr. Simon Thomas, supported by Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Adam Price and Hywel Williams presented a Bill to enable the National Assembly for Wales to make provision about registration and licensing schemes for houses in multiple occupation, about planning regulations, registration schemes and rates of council tax applicable to second homes, about building regulations in relation to older dwellings, and about the exercise by tenants of their right to buy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 18].

Children With Disabilities (Play Areas)

Mr. Adrian Sanders, supported by Mr. Anthony Steen, Mr. Robert Syms, Paul Flynn, Nick Harvey, Richard Younger-Ross, Mr. Gordon Prentice, Mr. Nigel Jones and Mr. Colin Pickthall presented a Bill to require local authorities to provide facilities suitable for use by children with disabilities when they upgrade play areas or construct new play areas: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 19].

Public Right of Planning Appeal

Mr. Nigel Evans, supported by Mr. Laurence Robertson, Lembit pik, Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, Mr. Desmond Swayne, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Miss Anne McIntosh, Mr. John Bercow, Mr. Bill Wiggin, Mr. Robert Syms, Mr. David Borrow and Mr. Mark Hendrick presented a Bill to introduce a right of appeal against the grant of consent for planning applications for certain persons and in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 20].

Football Spectators

Mr. Roger Godsiff presented a Bill to amend the law on the licensing of premises for the admission of spectators to football matches; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 2 November, and to be printed [Bill 21].

Animal Sanctuaries (Licensing)

Mr. Ian Cawsey, supported by Mr. David Amess, Norman Baker, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. Mike Hancock, Mr. Tim Loughton, Mr. Eric Martlew, Shona McIsaac, Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Martin Salter and Mr. Gerry Steinberg presented a Bill to make provision for the licensing and control of animal sanctuaries: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 22].

Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons)

Rachel Squire presented a Bill to permit, without infringement of copyright, the transfer of copyright works to formats accessible to visually impaired persons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 March 2002, and to be printed [Bill 23].

Tobacco Disclosure

Mr. Frank Dobson, supported by Mr. Kevin Barron, David Taylor, John Robertson, Miss Anne Begg and Dr. Phyllis Starkey presented a Bill to require the disclosure by companies selling tobacco products in the United Kingdom of full details of all scientific and market research carried out by or for them or associated companies; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 24].

Commonwealth

Mr. David Willetts presented a Bill to amend the law with respect to the Commonwealth Institute; to make provision in connection with the admission of Cameroon and Mozambique to the Commonwealth; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2002, and to be printed [Bill 25].

Firearms (Amendment)

Mr. Jonathan R. Shaw, supported by Mr. Vernon Coaker, Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews, Mr. Tony Banks, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Mike Hancock, Norman Baker and Mr. David Hinchliffe presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the purchase of air weapons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November, and to be printed [Bill 27].

Orders of the Day
	  
	European Communities (Amendment) Bill
	  
	[3rd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee [Progress, 17 July].

[Sylvia Heal in the Chair]
	  
	New Clause 4
	  
	Political parties at European level (No. 1)

'Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the funds received by political parties at European level of which political parties represented in UK Parliament are members, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice.'.[Mr. Spring.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Sylvia Heal: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 1, leave out should and insert shall.
	New clause 5Political parties at European level (No. 2)
	'Regulations governing political parties at European level and rules regarding their funding adopted under Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community as amended by Article 2 paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice, shall not have legal effect in the United Kingdom unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.'.

Richard Spring: New clauses 4 and 5 relate to an issue of fundamental importance to the House and to the future development of the European Unionthe funding and regulation of pan-European political parties. The treaty of Nice allows the Council of Ministers to lay down regulations governing political parties at a European level and, in particular, rules on their funding. I am aware that Ministers may point to the statement in declaration 11 claiming that there is no transfer of competence to the European Community. Currently, however, article 191 makes no mention whatever of the funding or regulation of parties.
	The treaty of Nice amends article 191 on political parties. It adds:
	The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251
	which deals with co-decision making
	shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding.
	The existence of a treaty base under article 308 for the proposed draft party statute is by no means universally accepted. Indeed, the House's European Scrutiny Committee declined to clear the document for precisely that reason.
	Therefore, Ministers signed up at Nice to placing in the treaties for the first time the power to regulate and fund political parties. They then went a step further and agreed that relevant measures would be decided by qualified majority voting. The Opposition believe that those decisions were wrong and that they merit a serious discussion in Committee and a detailed explanation from the Minister for Europe.
	Our new clause 5 provides that specific parliamentary approval is needed before party political regulations can take effect in British law. New clause 4 provides for openness concerning the amount that different parties are receiving. If Labour Members intend to vote against our new clauses, the Committee should be told why they regard the proposals as unacceptable.
	The Committee may be aware of the background to the developments. Currently, groups in the European Parliament receive funding from the Parliament. The Court of Auditors, however, has criticised the so-called leakage of those funds, which are intended for Members of the European Parliament but go instead into the hands of the European political parties themselves. Of course, we all support calls for more transparency in funding, but we believe that it is possible to achieve that objective by ensuring that such leakage stops.
	All too typically, the European Union institutions intend to tackle the problem by becoming involved in an entirely new sphere. The idea is not only that groups in the European Parliament would receive funding, but that pan-European parties themselves would be funded directly by the EU taxpayer, and that with that funding would come the power for the EU to regulate. We believe that that is totally unacceptable.
	First, it is wrong in principle for the EU to regulate political parties such as the European People's party, the party of European Socialists and the European Liberals, Democrats and Reformers.
	Secondly, it is wrong for the EU taxpayer to be told that he or she has to pay for those political parties. To reiterate, we are talking not about contributing to the cost of the parties' work in the European Parliament, which is provided for separately, but about subsidising the parties themselves.
	Thirdly, those provisions have the potential to discriminate systematically against non-integrationist political parties both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere.
	Fourthly, the ability to decide the regulations and funding not by unanimity but by QMV further increases the chances of the measures being used in a harmful and negative manner.
	We are concerned about the draft statute for pan-European parties, which is proposed under current treaty bases and has been subject to lengthy discussion. Initially, 7 million euros are to be made available for party funding, divided between the five existing European political parties. It may be said that that is not a huge sum, but 7 million euros is 7 million too many in our view. There is potential for the amount to rise in futurethat may even be inevitableand its distribution may be discriminatory.
	In advancing its proposal earlier this year, the Commission said:
	holding political views favourable to European integration is not a precondition to obtaining the status of a European political party, nor for receiving Community financing.
	I am sure that we are grateful for that. However, our concern is that giving the money to pan-European political parties means that, in Britain and elsewhere, the effect is exactly the same in practice.
	Unlike Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative party is not a member of a pan-European political party. That is the distinction. Prior to the Nice Council, the former Foreign Secretary seemed to think, when he appeared in front of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that we were members of the European People's party. We are not. Conservative MEPs are allied to the European People's party-European Democrats group in the European Parliament, but that is not a political party. Our party is not a member of the EPP itself, which is such a transnational party. We are not the UK branch of the EPP in the way that the Labour party is the UK branch of the party of European Socialists or the Liberal Democrat party is of the ELDR.
	It is true that declaration 11 states that funding provisions shall apply on the same basis to all the political forces represented in the European Parliament. But if the second-largest national force in the European Parliamentnamely the United Kingdom Conservative partyis not a member of any of the organisations receiving the funding, how can that principle be honoured?
	It is also true that the draft party statute states that a union of European political parties may register a statute of a European political party for these purposes. The Conservative party is a member of the European Democrat Union, which is a centre-right grouping, encompassing a range of parties across the European continent. But as far as I understand it, the EDU wishes to remain as a union, and does not intend to register as a political party. And why should it?

Angus Robertson: Why is the hon. Gentleman asking a Government Minister of another party for guidance on how the Conservative party should find friends in Europe, just because no one is prepared to serve in the same group with it?

Richard Spring: If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the basis of our relationship with the EPP, he is classically misinformed.
	As matters stand, even under the existing proposal and before the new treaty base is introduced, there may be discrimination in funding against organisations of which the main Opposition party in the UK is a member.
	We are not alone. In France, the Gaullist RPR is not currently a member of a transnational party. Thus, the main centre-right parties in two of the four larger member states of the EU would lose out under these proposals. That may be an indication to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) that we are not alone. This is not a coincidental effect. It is obviously more likely that a party that favours much greater European integration will want to sign itself up as part of a pan-European party.
	Indeed, Labour politicians were reported in January as welcoming the fact that the Conservative party would be disadvantaged as a result of our non-integrationist political views. It serves us right, was the gist of what they said. Yet we are talking about taxpayers' money, paid by people with a wide range of views on European integration.
	Any regulations introduced under the new part of article 191 will be agreed against the backdrop of the provisions of article 191 that already exist. They state that political parties at a European level are important because they are a
	factor for integration within the Union
	and
	contribute to forming a European awareness.
	Does the Minister really believe that the powers now being introduced to regulate and fund European parties under that article will not be used systematically to further those aims? That is the explicit intention on the face of the treaty. How can it be right to use taxpayers' money in that way? That is the simple question that needs to be answered.
	Declaration 11 makes it clear that national parties will not be funded under this article. However, the pan-European partiesand the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties are full members of that groupwould be so funded. That will boost those parties' ability to promote their case, and it may also mean that the national parties benefit from having to pay lower subscriptions.
	It is possible that the wording of the existing draft statute will be clarified during the course of the discussions to ensure that the EDU and other organisations will qualify.

John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree with the verdict reached in the 19th century by the great philosopher John Stuart Mill, that peoples who lack fellow feeling and who speak and read different languages cannot achieve the common public opinion necessary for representative government?

Richard Spring: As always, my hon. Friend brings a welcome sense of erudition and historical perspective to our debate.
	Who is to say that future measures introduced under the Nice treaty will not reintroduce such discrimination? Who is to say that regulations on matters other than funding will not be introduced that disadvantage pan-European parties with non-integrationist views, or that start making reference to some of the more controversial aspects of the charter of fundamental rightssuch as the right to strikeas a condition for recognition? Safeguards on the non-funding aspects of regulations are not covered at all by declaration 11.
	Future Governments, in the UK or elsewhere, may not be able to block such measures. Does that not illustrate the sheer folly of abandoning unanimity in this area?
	That brings me to the most fundamental point of all. Even if there were no chance at all of discrimination against non-integrationist parties, we would still not support this article. It is a matter of principle. The EU institutions simply should not be getting involved in this area; it should not be their business.
	It seemed for a long time that the Labour party agreed with us, at least on the changes proposed at Nice. Prior to Nice, my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) put the following point to the then Foreign Secretary, who is now the Leader of the House. At the sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee of 21 November 2000, my hon. Friend said:
	Article 191. It is proposed it deals with political parties, which it says are a good thing, and it goes on that the amendment is that the Council acting by QMV should lay down regulations governing political parties in Europe and in particular rules regarding their funding.
	The right hon. Gentleman replied:
	You will be intrigued to hear that it is missing from the Foreign Office list, by which I take it that we are not wildly enthusiastic about it . . . I personally am not aware of having given a view whether or not it should be QMV.
	I hope that the Minister will explain what happened at Nice to ensure that the Government signed up to a measure about which they were not enthusiastic. The familiar pattern of build-up, muddle, contradiction and lack of direction is evident again in relation to this matter.
	It was also reported in January that both UK Commissioners opposed the draft plans for a party statute. In The Times of 25 January, Neil Kinnock reportedly objected for
	reasons of democracy and political common sense.
	In fact, there seem to be so many arguments against this new treaty provision that, on the face of it, it is difficult to see why it should be proposed. However, a further look at what the Commission has been saying makes its longer-term intentions clear.
	In its report entitled Adapting the Institutions to Make a Success of Enlargement, published in January 2000, the Commission stated:
	The Union would greatly benefit from having a number of members of the European Parliament elected on European lists, presented to all European voters throughout the Union.
	The report goes on:
	Organising the European elections in this way would encourage the development of Europe-wide political parties and produce members who could claim to represent a European constituency rather than a purely national one.
	By endorsing the measures in the Nice treaty, the Government are encouraging further steps to be taken down that path that, frankly, most people in this country would find unacceptable.
	The two new clauses would not even stop article 2.19 of Nice being incorporated into United Kingdom lawthat has already been voted on as part of amendment No. 1. They would simply provide for certain safeguards. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members listening objectively to what I say will understand the need for such safeguards.
	New clause 5 would provide a chance for scrutiny by the House of any regulations adopted under this paragraph. That would stop the issue being swept under the carpet. If the measures are as harmless as the Government claim, they have nothing to fear from new clause 5. They would have even less to fear from new clause 4, which would merely provide for openness about the amount that the different parties receive. There would be an annual report from the Government, and what could be more open, transparent or fair than that?
	Following the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the House has provided for new levels of openness and scrutiny in the funding and regulation of UK political parties, including public disclosure of contributions. There was substantial debate on the measures contained in that report.
	It is vital that the measures on EU-wide political parties should not be allowed to slip through without similar scrutiny. I believe that it is owed to the House of Commons and the people of Britain that those standards are upheld and maintained on this basis. The Commission and others want this to be an area of growing activity in years to come. If it is, it will have a growing impact on the work of the political parties represented in the House. I therefore look forward to cross-party support for the important safeguards contained in the new clauses. They have everything to do with parliamentary accountability and the role of national Parliaments, and we intend to press the matter to a vote in due course.

Mark Hendrick: I am not surprised by the comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). The debate on the treaty has been going on for a few days now, and it is clear that Conservative Members are opposed to any form of co-operation or integration with our European partners, even where political parties in their own part of the political spectrum are concerned.
	I wish to deal with a few of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. Political parties in Europe already receive funding through the European Parliament to promote activities on behalf of their political groupsnot their national partieswhich share interests across national boundaries. That is legitimate activity, and as the hon. Gentleman said, it includes parties such as the PPE, the PES and the ELDR. I believe that the Conservatives were fairly close to the PPE at one time but, given that they have moved further to the right, they might not be accepted into it, even if they wished to be.
	More than 100 political parties sit in the European Parliament. If decisions are to be made and groups are to work cohesively, they need resources and funding, and unless they are made available, we will see a sclerosis in the European Parliament that will bring the whole place to a halt. That is why funding has been made available in the past and needs to be made available in the future.
	There was talk about non-integrationist parties. That means perhaps parties that do not want to join one of the political groups. They are perfectly free to hold that position; they can receive funding to support their views even though they do not wish to integrate with other parties in the European Parliament. So that point needs clearing up. Just because the Conservative party does not wish to join the PPE does not mean to say that it is not eligible for funds.

John Bercow: How does the hon. Gentleman square the observation that he has just made with the contents of the Schleicher report and specifically its emphasis on the importance of European political parties being instrumental in securing public support for the European integration project?

Mark Hendrick: I am sure that the report has been passed since I left the European Parliament in 1999. I know Mrs. Schleicher well; I was friendly with her. Given the preponderance of right-wing parties in the European Parliament, her view is not necessarily held by parties such as mine. To answer the question directly, the hon. Gentleman supposes that any funding received centrally, albeit out of taxpayers' money, would necessarily be unpopular among the general population. A poll has never been taken to see whether that is the case. It is merely the assertion of the Conservative party.
	Any non-integrationist party, as the Conservative party would presumably call itself, would be eligible for funding. If it chose not to receive itto my knowledge, the Conservative party has not done so in the pastit would be perfectly entitled to do so.
	Let us look at the figures. The hon. Member for West Suffolk mentioned 7 million euros. Given that we are looking at a Community of more than 350 million people, and that that could rise to 500 million people, 7 million eurosroughly 5 millionis chickenfeed. To make out that the cost will be a major burden on the European taxpayer and that the money that is being provided is immoral is a travesty.
	Let us look at the facts about the Conservative party in Europe. It is not a member of the PPE

John Bercow: EPP.

Mark Hendrick: In French, it is PPE. I am happy to correct the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members often mention the European Democratic Union. There are some very right-wing organisations in that group. We have seen associations between the Conservatives and the Alleanza Nazionale in Italy and Forza Europa. It is clear which way the Conservative party is moving, and it is not towards mainstream European political activity.
	If the Conservative party is not integrationist, I find that strange for a party that supposedly wants to stay in the EU. A union, by its very name, means that one wants to come together to co-operate and integrate. It is strange that the Conservatives are not coming clean with the electorate, as they should have done before the general election. All the sham about renegotiating treaties is just a front for withdrawal. Conservative Members want to withdraw from the EU.

William Cash: This is an interesting point. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has heard about amendments to the intergovernmental conferences that take place from time to time. The very Bill that we are debating is the product of renegotiation. If we are renegotiating the treaty of Amsterdam to turn it into the treaty of Nice, is that calling for withdrawal?

Mark Hendrick: Of course it is not. The hon. Gentleman knows well that that is not the case, because the Government are approaching the negotiation positively. We know that the Opposition oppose not only the Nice treaty, but the Amsterdam and Maastricht treaties. They want to unravel decades of European development and our agreements with European member states, which have kept the peace for many years in Europe. They want to wreck the treaties, stretching back to the first treaty at Messina.

John Bercow: I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is over-reaching himself. He is in dangerI put it no stronger than that because it is a matter for you, Mrs. Healof straying from the confines of new clause 4 in the broad historical sweep in which he has just engaged. Does he seriously contend that opposition to the proposals on the funding of pan-European political parties is somehow a byword for withdrawal? That is an absurd proposition, even by his standards.

Mark Hendrick: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his usual entertaining intervention, but it does not get away from the fact that the proposal on pan-European political parties is just one of many that, as we have seen during the past few days, the Conservative party want to introduce to wreck the Nice treaty.
	The hon. Member for West Suffolk made the point that the RPR is not a member ofI say it againthe PPE. Of course, it is not, but the UDFanother centre-right party in Franceis a member, so the presumption that, because there is an exception, Conservative or right-wing parties do not necessarily have to be members of the PPE and, therefore, that they are not integrationist is not the majority view. The majority of Conservative and Christian Democrat parties are members of the PPE, and it says more about the Conservative party in this country than it does about its sister parties in Europe that it opposes such measures. Let us be honest: the Conservative party is not interested in the European Parliament or the European Commission; it is not interested in a European Union.

Menzies Campbell: That was a partisan contribution to our deliberationsperhaps a little more partisan than some that we heard earlier in the Committee's consideration of such matters, and I shall try, so far as I can, to be a little more objective.
	Of course, it is worth reminding ourselves that, under article 190(5), there is a move towards qualified majority voting on the general conditions and regulations that govern the performance and duties of Members of the European Parliament, but that taxation remains the subject of unanimity. I understand that that was one of Her Majesty's Government's stipulations that was accepted as part of the discussions in Nice. It is also worth saying that the EU Court of Auditors has consistently called for a statute to regulate European political parties and to ensure transparency in funding, and I shall return to that in a moment.
	From what I have said so far, the House may have deduced that I support the changes made in articles 190 and 191, but notwithstanding that fact, I have considerable sympathy with new clause 4, and if it is pressed to a Division, my hon. Friends and I will most certainly support the official Opposition in the Lobby. Whatever one's analysiswe heard one from the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and another from the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick)I do not understand how one could possibly resist the suggestion that there should be openness and transparency in scrutinising the use of taxpayers' funds to enable democratic politics to be undertaken at European level.
	I should be interested to hear what compelling arguments the Government have on new clause 4, because I should have thought it precisely consistent with those principles of openness that have become much more readily part of our political system. Those principles may require further development, but we are being open about financial contributions to political parties and their sources, and there is absolutely no difference in principle in being similarly open about precisely what sums have gone to the political parties represented in this Parliament under the proposed arrangements for political parties in the EU.

Angus Robertson: Following that logic, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman support the proposition that Members of the Scottish Parliament should be able to scrutinise the dissemination of moneys to political parties represented in this House?

Menzies Campbell: What lies behind that intervention is an attempt to make the Scottish Parliament the equivalent of the Westminster Parliament. We understand that that is the raison d'tre of the Scottish National party, but it is the United Kingdom that is a member of the European Union, and it is the United Kingdom Parliament that has the responsibility for ensuring that Britain's relationships with the EU are proper and that the necessary supervision is carried out. I do not agree that those matters should become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. They might do some day, if the hon. Gentleman's prayer is answered and Scotland becomes independent, but that day is a long way off, and for the moment I see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should be invited to intervene in an issue that is essentially one for the Westminster legislature.
	My party has long called for a statute to regulate the affairs of MEPs. It seems that 25 years after the European Parliament was first directly elected, the current system of expenses, including travel expenses, and reimbursements remains, to say the least, complex, opaque and, in many respects, indefensible. It is fair to say that British MEPs have, on various occasions, sought to argue the case for a system much more akin to that in this Parliament, and MEPs of all parties are to be supported and congratulated on having done that. However, that view has not prevailed.
	It seems to me, echoing the theme of openness once again, that if we are concerned in our domestic politics to be open and subject to scrutiny, not only should the Government accept the notion of a report of the kind identified and embraced in new clause 4, but the European Union should make a clear statement of the terms and conditions for all Members and their salary, travel and office expenses. We are all concerned about the connection between the electorate and Parliament, and in particular between the British electorate and the European Parliament, and a statute of the kind that I am suggesting would make a substantial contribution to that. There is no doubt that the European Parliament ought to have more power to hold other EU institutions to account, but with an extension of such power must come responsibility, and with an extension of responsibility must come more transparency.
	I shall conclude with an observation about the European Parliament which I suspect will get some support from most quarters of the House. It is increasingly difficult to justify the ludicrous state of affairs whereby the Parliament is required to decamp from Brussels to Strasbourg for a week every month. There are those who have estimated that the savings made by ending that procedure would be some 100 million a year. I simply cannot see the justification for continuing it. I do not for a moment minimise the difficulty of persuading the French to give up what they see almost as an inalienable right, but if we are serious about reforming the European Union, that seems to me to be one of the more obvious reforms, and one that would make instantaneous financial savings.
	The changes in articles 190 and 191 are perfectly reasonable, and they should be supported. New clause 4, which would introduce the transparency and scrutiny to which I referred, is similarly worthy of support and I repeat that if the matter is pressed to a Division, I will invite and advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.

Roger Casale: I shall make a short contribution to this important debate about article 191 of the treaty of Nice, which creates the legal base for the Council to introduce a statute to regulate European political parties. I emphasise the word regulate, because anyone listening to the debate might think that as a result of the measures that we will pass this evening, we are creating some new beast in the European jungle, in the form of transnational parties, that will threaten our country's well-being and independence.
	Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) pointed out, transnational parties have existed in Europe for some time. There are a number of such groupings in the European Parliament representing the Christian Democrats, the Liberal Democrats, the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Communists. The fact that the Conservative party has decided not to participate in such transnational groupings does not mean that they do not already exist. Let us remind ourselves of the important function that they perform.
	In a world increasingly conditioned by international flows of money, international movements of labour, and regulations and directives passed in co-operation with other European countries in an international context, it is right that there should be a parallel process of the formation of democratic will across civic society. That is one of the important functions that political parties in our country and transnational European political parties can perform.
	Transnational parties can help the people of Europe to think about the policies that they want for Europe, to the extent that those policies will be decided at a transnational level in the future. Transnational parties provide a valuable tool for putting forward such policies and finding out the common ground across European peoples and societies, parallel to the way in which political parties do that in our own society.

John Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has helpfully confirmed a suspicion that has been fuelled in my mind for some time. Will he put it on the record so that it is clear beyond peradventure that he accepts that the flow of funds to European political parties as currently proposed will necessarily and inexorably increase the pressure for more supranational legislative activity? If that is what he wants, it is not dishonourable, but I think it is wrong.

Roger Casale: I do not accept that that will give rise to inexorable pressure. The hon. Gentleman's comment is a further example of a knee-jerk reaction to any proposal in the name of European co-operation. As regards funding, we need to know about the flow of funds into European political parties and the source of those funds. That needs to be properly regulated by statute at a pan-European level, which is exactly what article 191 of the treaty of Nice seeks to achieve.

Richard Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is inadvertently supporting the cause of the Opposition. He says that he wants transparency. The place to air such issues in relation to British political parties is in the House of Commons.

Roger Casale: I shall deal with the detail of the new clauses later. The point of article 191 is to provide a legal foundation for the Council to introduce a statute to allow for the regulation of European political parties. Opposition Members seem to be suggesting that the treaty of Nice will allow the development of such parties. One can see why some of them think that a bad thing. They do not like Europe or the idea of Governments-let alone political parties-getting together. They think that they have found a hint of conspiracy and have removed themselves from any co-operation or participation in transnational groups of the centre right. It is clear why they would be against such political formulations, but it is also clear that article 191 does not establish them, as they already exist. I am in favour of the article because it provides a basis for the regulation of European parties.
	I am proud to be a member not only of the Labour party, but of the party of European Socialists. I think that we have much more in common than we realise with some of the members of our sister parties in the European Union. It is a common feature of debate in this House that hon. Members berate the European Union or attack various member states. As soon as the summer holidays arrive, however, many of them set off to Europe. When they do so, perhaps they should try to meet some of their colleagues in other European parties. If they talk to those people, they might discover that one can have a lot in common with colleagues in national Parliaments abroad.
	The point of European political parties is to allow and promote such exchanges, so that as we build a European institutional architecture, we can discover that what we do together is based on a common set of values and, to some extent, on common aspirations. The process should be advanced through the European Parliament and political parties, and the existence of European political parties assists its progress. My strong recommendation to Opposition Members is that, although their party will not participate as a European political party, they should meet their colleagues from other European countries individually. They might find that they like such meetings and learn something from them.

Peter Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman accept our simple point, which is that although we are delighted that he feels so at home with his socialist friends in Europe, we do not believe that the British taxpayer should be required to pay for that interaction?

Roger Casale: That has been a common theme at every stage of our debate. Opposition Members are sometimes good enough to recognise that Britain's membership of the European Union has benefits, but they want to have them at no price. I am afraid that that view, which has been repeatedly expressed during our deliberations, is unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman must decide whether he is against the existence of European political parties in principle, as his party seems to be, or whether he merely does not want to pay for them.
	I can understand why the Opposition do not like the measure, as they are clear about what they do not like. They like neither the European Union nor the idea of political parties within it. That is why they refuse to join the European People's party. It parallels their reluctance to be involved in Europe. The article provides the opportunity for the Council to introduce measures that will regulate the purpose and funding of European political parties. It will introduce more democracy, accountability and transparency to the funding of political parties. Since the European political parties will receive funds, it will also make clear the criteria for recognising them.

Richard Spring: The difficulty of examining such issues in the clear light of day in the House of Commons is not clear to me. We talk about the disconnection between the people of Europe, their Parliaments and European institutions and the funding for them. We now have an opportunity to give uncontentious support to enhancing the House's scrutiny procedures. If the hon. Gentleman were impartial, he could not object to that.

Roger Casale: If the hon. Gentleman believes that political parties can reconnect people with the political process, he should support the concept of European political parties. He claims that he objects to it.
	The amendments deal with the role of the House of Commons in scrutinising European Union measures. Time and again, Conservative Members have tabled amendments to provide for further debate in the House on any new initiatives from the European Union. Yet we already have a good and effective scrutiny mechanism for European legislation: the European Scrutiny Committee.
	At a meeting of that Committee this morning, we held a debate about the statute to regulate European political parties. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) referred to the work of the European Scrutiny Committee at an earlier stage in our deliberations, when article 191 was discussed. The Committee scrutinised it and we discussed it again this morning. We decided that we were happy to lift the scrutiny reserve on the draft statute. It is therefore wrong to claim that, without the amendments, no scrutiny of any statute to regulate the work of the European Parliament will occur.

William Cash: I regret that I was unable to be present at the meeting this morning. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the Committee believes that the article does not require debate? Did we refer it for debate in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House?

Roger Casale: We decided that we would not refer it for debate because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that would handicap the Government in progressing with negotiations on the statute.

John Bercow: How inconvenient.

Roger Casale: If the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) had been present at this morning's meeting, he could have made his point. However, we discussed the matter and, as he knows, the Committee does not refer for debate every item that comes before it.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are straying wide of the new clause. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now confine his remarks to it.

Roger Casale: I am grateful for your advice, Mrs. Heal. We debated the matter in the European Scrutiny Committee this morning.
	In conclusion, what lies behind the new clause is the usual cocktail of great fear and anxiety about the European Union, and an unwillingness fully to participate in any aspect of European integration, including the formation of transnational parties. That fear is not justified. There is a need for proper regulation of political parties, and that is provided for in the statute that will be created following the ratification of the treaty. There is also a need for proper scrutiny, and that is effectively carried out by the European Scrutiny Committee. For those reasons, I will not support the new clause.

William Cash: We have just been treated to a pretty astonishing series of admissions. We have been told by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) that the European Scrutiny Committee did a good job this morning in ensuring that there would not be a debate on the regulation to which we are supposed to be referring. If that is scrutiny, I should like to know what is not.
	This regulation creates serious problems.

Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Cash: No, he will not. Not a chance. I have not even started yet.
	The regulation is extremely important in relation to the manner in which political parties and groups are differentiated in the European Parliament and, therefore, the European Union. It is disappointing that so few people are attending these debates. One could understand the reason for that yesterday, with all the euphoria and depression colliding in various parts of the Palace of Westminster, but there is no excuse for such a poor attendance today.
	I am standing here opposite the distinguished Minister for Europe, a member of another political party. I strongly approve of the fact that we have a party political system in this country, but the rainbow arrangementsthe totally chaotic alliancesthat are created in the European Parliament have no clear philosophy underpinning them to enable anyone to know what they are voting for. This debate is about an increase in the functions of a so-called Parliament and a so-called European Union based on an extremely uncertain course of navigation.

Peter Hain: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the reason why there are relatively few Members on the Government Benches is that there is still a great deal of euphoria among Labour Members at the result of the election yesterday.

William Cash: I have no idea how all that will pan out in due course. All I can say is that I am confident that my Learned Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is going to do extremely well and, in my opinion, win. Then, Labour will discover some serious opposition to the sort of proposals coming from its Front Bench. I am just doing my best, at the moment, to supplement some of the arguments that I have been developing over a long period. My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) has done a marvellously urbane job in speaking to the amendments and I pay tribute to him as a dear friend and colleague. Sometimes, however, I think that we could go a little bit further in some of the decisions that we take when voting on these matters.
	That is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment (a) to new clause 4. I say this with great respect to the shadow Foreign Secretary, whose name heads the list of those tabling the new clause: I entirely agree with most of it, but I believe it would provide us only with an annual report, as opposed to the serious opposition that is required, for the reasons that I shall give. It says:
	Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report.
	I shall be kind and assume that that is supposed to mean something a little more emphatic, although I very gently tabled a little amendment to leave out should and insert shall. I do not want to make a great issue of that, but with respect to new clause 5, the business of the regulations is much more serious. I do not want to draw nice distinctions between new clause 5 and my amendment, but the new clause says that the regulations
	shall not have legal effect in the United Kingdom unless approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	I suggest that we leave out have legal effect in and insert
	be incorporated in the domestic law.
	There is a nice distinction there, but I do not want to press it too much, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk and his colleagues took the right approachor at any rate had the right intention. There is a bigger problem. When the treaty goes through by way of incorporation in domestic law, it follows[Interruption.] Although my dear and hon. Friend has to speak to the usual channels in the usual way, would he be kind enough to pay a tiny bit of attention to the point I am about to make?
	If a treaty is to be incorporated in the domestic law of this country by way of an Act of Parliament, regulations must subsequently be made that deal with, in this example, political parties. However, there is a problem with new clause 5, which would not allow regulations through unless they were
	approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
	The little problem is section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972, which invokes the Court of Justice and, indeed, the implementation of laws followed by their absorption in our own legal bloodstream. Once that has happened, it will unfortunately not be possible for us then to pass a resolution disapproving those regulations.
	I very much agree with the sentiment behind the new clause and I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk has, perhaps peradventure, raised a serious point. Indeed, many Opposition Members have wanted to raise it emphatically for a long time: the House of Commons will not be dictated to by legislation that comes from another source in the EU. We say that there is a residual sovereignty in the House as a result of which it is incumbent on uslet alone the fact that we want to do soto ensure that in respect of matters as fundamental as what a political party is, we in this House should not be overridden.
	You and I, Mrs. Heal, and all other Members are voted for in our constituencies in relation to political parties which would not be recognised under the regulations. I hope that Members of the House, though few are here today, appreciate how invasive the provisions are. That goes not only to the mechanics of political parties or groups, but to what people believe in and what they vote for. As I have said over and over again in several debates in the past few weeks, this is their Parliamentthe Parliament of the people. The political parties represent different points of view that are reflected in the people's choice, which is the essence of democracy and the freedom that goes with it.
	If the regulations are introduced and passed, we shall be unable to reverse them. The Court of Justice would rule any such resolution of the House invalid and we would find ourselves roly-poly absorbed in the new arrangements being prescribed by the EU.

Wayne David: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to give us an explanation of this roly-poly process?

William Cash: It is called roly-poly pudding, and it means that we will get rolled up somewhere in the attic, like Samuel Whiskers in Beatrix Potter, and left there for a long time unless we are lucky and someone comes along to save us. Someone must save the Conservative party and the country from these arrangements. That is the problem. Believe it or not, the Labour party is also caught up in this, but it has not twigged yet. It will not be able to differentiate itself from the Conservative party under the principles that will be laid down in the regulations. Sooner or later it will wake up.
	I want to pay tribute to a good friend and colleague of mine, Roger Helmer MEP. He wrote an important article called The Brave New World of European Political Parties in The European Journal published by the European Foundation, of which I happen to be the chairman. It was published in June, so it is pretty well up to date. I shall send it to the Minister, because I am sure that he will be extremely interested to read it.
	The article says that the launch of new pan-European political parties has been on the agenda since at least 1996 when the Tsatsos report was prepared by the European Parliament's Committee on Institutional Affairsin fact, it was going on some time before that. It is essential to distinguish political parties from political groups in the European Parliament. Most national political parties represented in the European Parliament form part of a parliamentary group. For example, Labour MEPs sit with the PSE, which is the party of European socialists, and the Tories are associate but not full members of the EPP/ED, which is known as the European People's party and the European Democrats group.
	As Roger Helmer cogently explains,
	European political parties, on the other hand, exist outside the parliament. Clearly, where both a group in the EP and a corresponding political party exist, there will be close links between the two, as is the case in the UK between Westminster parties and national parties, but they are plainly not the same thing. European funding already exists for both MEPs and political groups in the EP. The proposals now on the table, and especially those outlined in the report prepared by . . . Ursula Schleicher, MEP
	who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)
	which is currently before the EP, are for European political parties, not for groups in the EP.
	Roger Helmer goes on to say:
	The definition of a European party is clearly set out.
	That is where the difference is and where the real problem lies. He gives the definition.
	Such a party must have representation in the European parliament, or in national or regional parliaments, in at least five member states, or have achieved at least 5 per cent. of the vote in at least five member states at the last European elections.
	Surprise, surprisethe Conservative party does not qualify! Isn't that a funny thing? This is quite dangerous, and I am interested to know how the Minister will reply. Apart from anything else, this is a serious attack on democracy in the United Kingdom. I would love to know what my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk thinks about all this. Back Benchers are speaking in complete unison on such matters. I hope that I have not missed anything my hon. Friend said, but I also hope that he, like me, thinks that this represents a dangerous invasion and annihilation of the funding arrangements for the Conservative party. That is a fairly dramatic thing to have to say.
	We must ask what is behind all this. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham quoted John Stuart Mill, and others have expressed similar sentiments. This is, in fact, about the whole idea of European democracy: it is about why, under these arrangements, which are much more important than they seem at first sight, European democracy is a non-starter and European political parties unnecessary.
	As if we did not already know, as a result of all these debates, that we are moving towards full-blown political union, let me ask the Minister a specific question: does he really appreciate that that is what is going on? I see his advisers scribbling away; I hope that they can rush something to him. I trust that they recognise that this question will, or ought to, concern a good many Conservative Members, because we are in the middle of a leadership election.
	Some years ago, a former contender for the Conservative party leadership rang me to ask whether I would vote for him. I said no. He asked why not. I said What is the point of being Prime Minister of nothing? He said You cannot say that to me. I said Yes I can. Et tu, Brute, and put the phone down.

Peter Duncan: We can't work it out, Bill. Tell us who it was.

William Cash: I shall have to tell the hon. Gentleman later. It will all emerge in due course.
	The plain fact is that we already have a European flag, passport and anthem, and we now have the brave new world represented by the call for European political parties. As if all that were not enough, a proposed amendment to the Schleicher report requires assent to the so-called charter of fundamental rights as a criterion for funding.
	No doubt the Minister knows all this. He has not been in his job for long, but there are some real crackers here, and I am sure he has caught up with them by now.
	To obtain consent for funding under the proposals, including those in the Schleicher report, it would be necessary to express agreement with the charter of fundamental rightswhich, as we all know, we are not even allowed to debate. That is a very unfair arrangement: we are not allowed to stipulate the basis on which we would be prevented, under the proposals in the report, from receiving funding that would enable us to exist as a political party. That would rule out the Tory party at a stroke.
	The report contains some superficial reassurance in regard to whether a Euro-realist party could exist in the European Parliament. It says:
	Parties need not necessarily
	I think this is wonderful
	be advocates of European integration; Euro-sceptical parties may also be supported if their policies focus on issues of European integration
	at which we all say Hurrah! Isn't this wonderful! We are allowed to focus on issues of European integration. As the Minister and others may know, I have been focusing on those questions for the best part of 16 years, and I have no intention of giving up.

John Bercow: I always applaud my hon. Friend's careful study of the minutiae of these matters, but does he not agree, on a broader level, that the very notion of pan-European political parties is transparently absurd, given that they have no demos to represent? Does he not agree that they would only cease to be absurd and become meaningful if there were among the peoples of Europe a common identity, a common purpose and a common willingness to make equal sacrifices to achieve that purpose? As none of those conditions exists, what is the point of such parties?

William Cash: Excepting one or two minor matters that have arisen recently, which I am glad to say we have now put behind us, I always agree with my hon. Friend, particularly on the issues that are before us. Three cheers for the fact that he is here fighting with us on this particular issue! That goes to prove that we really are a political partyand we will remain one, by the way.
	Hurrah, hurrah that we are allowed to focus on issues of European integration! As I have said, however, the reassurance is very thin. The report goes on,
	They
	that is, the Euro parties
	are seen as instrumental in securing public support for the European integration project.
	As Mr. Helmer points out,
	So that's all right then. And remember it will be either federalist 'wise men' or the federalist EP
	European Parliament
	which will decide on eligibility.
	A curious thing went on in the European Parliament. It just goes to show what can go on when serious arguments are brought up in that strange body. As Mr. Helmer pointed out,
	We decided to fight back. The Schleicher report was the subject of an extraordinary procedural ambush in the Strasbourg plenary on 16 May 2001, planned and executed by a group of committed Euro-realist Tory MEPs.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is wandering rather wide of the new clause.

William Cash: I will only say that the Tory MEPs managed to ambush the project, but the triumph did not last long: it was all over the next day following a procedural motion.
	The proposal raises some important questions. As I have said, the British Conservative party clearly does not qualify under the arrangements proposed in the regulations. [Interruption.] Would the Minister be kind enough to intervene? Perhaps he will be able to help me as I come to my peroration. He does not want to. He wants to deal with the point during his winding-up speech.

Mark Francois: The Minister has his notes.

William Cash: Indeed. I saw a lot of frantic scribbling going on over there. I trust it is accurate but we will find out later.
	I have to confess that I had something of a tiff withis he Lord Patten, Sir Christopher Patten or Mr. Christopher Patten? I cannot remember. At the time, I had a few words of disagreement with him upstairs over the question of the European People's party and our application to join itit lasted about an hour and a half.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I fail to see the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's argument to the new clause.

William Cash: It is absolutely relevant and I say that with great respect, Mrs. Heal. The European People's party is in fact a group in the European Parliament. It is absolutely relevant to the question of where the money will go. I think that that is a fair point. It is bang slap wallop within the arrangements that are stipulated by the regulations.
	That was some time ago. We have heard from the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman that we are rather loosely connected with that strange body, the EPP. It would be strange if we were fully connected with it. After all it is exclusively federal. I am glad to get that reassurance from my hon. Friend.
	This is a matter of considerable importance to the Conservative party for many reasons. If we ask the question in Conservative party terms, What is a political party? we go back to the great dictum of Edmund Burke, the greatest exponent of the philosophy of the Conservative party and a person of whom we should all be inordinately proud. He said that a political party is a body of menof course now he would say men and womenwho are joined together in the national interest and on a particular principle on which they are all agreed.
	That raises an important question. There is no doubt that the present proposal is not in the national interest. It is in the European interest. That is the big difference. The definition of a political party is a body of men and women who are all agreed on a particular principle. That raises a fundamental question about who governs. There are big issues here.
	It was Disraeli, one of our greatest Prime Ministers, who said that the Tory party is a national party or it is nothing. He did not say nationalistic and his remarks referred to the democratic nation state. I wish that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) were here. I would like him to hear some of the debate because I know that he is in favour of the Nice treaty; he is in favour of all these arrangements.
	Against that background, I would like the Minister to answer the questions that I have posed, and some of my colleagues to do likewise.

Wayne David: May I correct a misapprehension that was suggested earlier with regard to the sitting of the European Scrutiny Committee this morning? The reason why the Committee decided not to discuss this subject was that we knew full well that this debate was taking place this afternoon; it was as simple as that.
	Every hon. Member would surely agree that in the European Union there is a huge democratic deficit. There are many ways in which we can reduce that deficit, and one of the key ways is by ensuring that far more scrutiny and attention are given to European issuesand, indeed, to the House. We also need to think about how all the European Union institutions function and relate to each other. A debate is about to begin on governance in the European Union and how we define subsidiarity in determining where power can and should lie in the EU.
	It is important that we consider how the European Parliament develops as an institution. One of the positive things about the Nice treaty is that it gives extra, albeit modest, powers to the European Parliament. We need to ensure that the European Parliament, along with the member states, can monitor the European Commission effectively and hold it to account.
	That could incrementally reduce the democratic deficit in the EU, but it is important to recognise that there is another way to do that: ensuring that there is sufficient debate, discussion and policy formulation among political parties at European level. That is vital. Only when we encourage debate at European level will we have proper control over European Union institutions. They cannot exist in a political vacuum. That is why, gradually over time, political parties have developed.
	Hon. Members have referred to a number of political parties. I am proud to be a member of the party of European Socialists as well as of the Labour party. The pan-European parties have come together naturally, voluntarily and out of choice. People have decided that it is necessary for them to come together to advance a political perspective.
	It is up to the Conservative party whether it wants to be part of that process, but it should not try to impede the democracy and development of others simply because it does not want to be part of it. That is its choice. Equally, it is our choice. It is undemocratic of people to try to undermine what they do not agree with.
	As I said, the process has already begun. It is evident not only at a European level, but at other levels of administration and governance. There is also a parallel with events inside the United Kingdom, such as devolution to Scotland and to Wales. It is significant that in my own country of Wales, for example, with the advent of devolution, a Welsh Labour party and a Welsh Conservative party have developed. Although not many people vote for the latter party, it is there. That is a recognition that there is a tier of governance in Wales. The same type of development is occurring at European level, and that development is perfectly natural and sensible.
	Amended article 191 will not simply reduce the democratic deficit and recognise the new political reality: it will achieve greater transparency and greater financial probity. I say that as one who was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. In that time, I sawthis is not a party political pointthat the pan-European parties were being indirectly funded by the seepage of European Parliament resources. The Court of Auditors pointed out that reality, and the Labour party has strongly supported the Court's observations and recommendations. Article 191 has been amended because we want to ensure that everything is done properly, above board and with the utmost transparency and probity.
	In view of the rhetoric of Conservative Members, who always tell us that they want to reduce any suggestion of maladministration or lack of probity in the European Union, I should have thought that they would support the Bill. It is a step forward in ensuring greater accountability and transparency, which is a very sound argument for supporting it. The democratic argument and arguments for greater probity support the Nice treaty.
	We have heard much today about Edmund Burke and his definitions of democracy. I remind Conservative Members that we should not forget other great political thinkers, such as Thomas Paine, who said very clearly in the 1790s that we should never forget that, ultimately, democracy rests with the people.

William Cash: We are well versed in Tom Paine. All I can say is, was he not extremely lucky to get away without being guillotined? Was he not a lucky man?

Wayne David: Yes indeed, he was very lucky. It is lucky for us, too, that he was not guillotined, because we can all learn a great deal not only from his thesis on democracy but from his internationalism. However, I do not want to stray from the point.

Mark Francois: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman, a Labour Member, has chosen to quote a republican political philosopher.

Wayne David: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Labour party is a broad church.
	We should recognise that ultimately, in any civilised civil society, sovereignty rests with the people. Ultimately, it is a matter of choice whether people wish to associate across national boundaries in political entities and political parties. In a mature democracy, sufficient resources should be found for that other sort of democracy to flourish. We want a European Union that will once again express the genuine aspirations of the people of Europe.

Angus Robertson: I shall not take up much of the Committee's time, but I want to touch on two very specific points: the funding of transnational political parties, and the level of democracy at which scrutiny should be exercised over such an enterprise.
	It is rather curious that most of the time taken up by the official Opposition at Westminster in considering the Bill has focused on the Conservative party's funding arrangements and its interrelationship with, or semi- detachment from, its colleagues on the centre right. Every political party has to make choices about who its friends are at a European level. My party, the Scottish National party, had to make that choice and is part of the fourth largest group in the European Parliament, the Greens/European Free Alliance. However, although we all have to make choices about who our friends are, it is absolutely mind-boggling that it is beyond the wit of the Conservative party to find like-minded colleagues.
	It is regrettable that that should be the most substantive and time-consuming matter for Conservative Members in considering the Bill. I listened very closely to the speeches by the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring), and they seemed to spend most of their time on it. However, their argument did not hold water. Although the hon. Member for Stone raised more serious issues that should perhaps be addressed, the problem of finding colleagues at a European level does not constitute a substantial objection to the proposals.
	The hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan) seemed to be opposed to the funding of political parties by taxpayers, but I suspect that that was probably because he prefers the support of big business. Again, I do not think that that is a substantive argument.
	It is unfortunate that the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has left the Chamber. I should have thought that heas a man of note in the Scottish legal professionand the Liberal Democrat party would support the notion that, at least in Scotland's case, the people, not Parliament, are sovereign. That is a very established tradition. It is strange that the Liberal Democrats chose not to support the idea that scrutinyif indeed we need more scrutinyshould be exercised in the Scottish Parliament, not in this House.
	The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) often talks about subsidiarity and proportionality. I believe that democracy should be scrutinised at the level closest to the people, which is why I shall not support new clause 4. The devolved level is the right place for such matters to be decided.

Peter Hain: I assure the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that his persistent arguments do indeed lead to a great deal of scribbling by Foreign Office officials. The legendary JBthe Foreign Office official who was outed yesterday morning on the Today programmeis doing nothing but scribble, because of the formidable points made by the hon. Gentleman. I am told that JB may even have to cancel his annual holiday to respond to the detailed submissions, which we await with enthusiasm, that the hon. Gentleman promised me last week.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) very courteously told us that he would have to leave the Chamber briefly, but I can tell him that I am very sorry that we lost his general support for the Government's position on the treaty and the Bill. He has advanced some extremely compelling arguments.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what the compelling arguments against new clause 4 were. The first argument, in reply to one of his points, is that the statute for Members of the European Parliament is different from the statute on the European political parties. For two and a half years we have been negotiating a statute for MEPs' terms and conditions under article 190(5) of the treaty, but we cannot reach agreement with the European Parliament. There is also no chance of ending the division between the European Parliament's sites. Sometimes, the Parliament meets for plenary sessions in Strasbourg and for committees in Brussels, whereas the secretariat meets in Luxembourg. The French will not agree to a sensible resolution of the sites issue. That whole question depends on achieving the very unanimity that Conservative Members always invite us to endorse, and sometimes that stops sensible progress of this kind.
	New clause 4 is not necessary. Parliament has a highly effective scrutiny systemas my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) pointed outin the European Scrutiny Committee, of which the hon. Member for Stone is a distinguished member. I wrote to the scrutiny Committees yesterday with details of the proposals from the Belgian presidency on the dossier, which were discussed in the presidency working group last Friday.
	The letter covered presidency proposalsnot final regulations, as I must explain to counter some of the hot air from the hon. Member for Stone and his colleaguescovering registration, verification, legal personality, expenses, financing and control. The last will be of interest to the Committee. Money must be accounted for in accordance with the rules applicable to the general budget of the EU and the financial regulation on the basis of an annual certificate by an external and independent auditor to be transmitted to the European Parliament and the European Court of Auditors. In other words, the proposals contain rigorous procedures for accountability and transparency.

William Cash: I have been familiar with these procedures for some time. On what date is it intended that this matter will be put through? Is it a matter of urgency?

Peter Hain: It is a presidency proposal, which will be put to the forthcoming General Affairs Council.

William Cash: When?

Peter Hain: In October, I think. We will continue to keep the Committees and the House informed on the issue.
	In response to the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, it is worth remembering that the arrangements to be negotiated for EC funding will require a public statement of accounts by each European political party. All the necessary information will be available publicly, and that is why the new clause is not necessary.
	New clause 5 requires Parliament to approve the EC regulation before it comes into effect. This is not acceptable; the statute, once agreed, will have immediate legal effect in the UK, under the terms of the European Communities Act 1972. But Parliament has a highly effective system for scrutinising European Community documents, and scrutiny Committees can request a debate on the draft statute before its adoption.
	I enjoy sparring with the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). For a Conservative, he is a pretty straight and decent guy. But his speech was full of puffed-up and contrived anger on a series of specious points that were not relevant to the issue. I am not sure whether the kind of speech that he made will be good for his career if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) becomes leader of the Conservative party. As someone who is concerned about his career and wants to see him do well, I urge him to show caution and prudence on this point.
	Nice provides a new legal basis for a measure to regulate European political parties, and in particular, their funding arrangements. It is important to dwell on the facts for a moment. Parties such as the PES and the EPP are not new; indeed, they were first recognised by the Maastricht treaty, which was signed by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), who is the boss of the hon. Member for West Suffolk. His boss signed the treaty that set up the system, and the hon. Gentleman is now having a go at it; that is very ill-disciplined.
	It is right that people should be able to form parties at European as well as national level, if they want to. Several British national parties are affiliated to European political parties, as my hon. Friends the Members for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Wimbledon pointed out. Those parties are not inherently evil, as some Conservative Members seem to suggest. It is revealing that when my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said that if the political groups within the European Parliament did not have funding provided as it is here, it would gum up the workings of the European Parliament, the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and some of his colleagues said, Good, as if their objective was to create chaos in the European Parliament. That was a revealing reaction.

John Bercow: I was rather perturbed by the Minister's unsubtle attempt at censorship of the views of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr Spring). In the context of the funding and operation of political parties, may I put it on record for the House that in the event of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) becoming leader of my party, I for one intend to express my views about European political parties as forcefully in the future as I have in the past?

Peter Hain: And a jolly good thing too. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman will be doing so from the Front Bench.

John Bercow: No.

Peter Hain: Exactly. I am anxious to see the hon. Member for West Suffolka very able Front Benchercontinue to sit on the Opposition Front Bench for as long as possible; I am concerned about his career.
	There is a problem with the situation as it has developed over the years. The political groups within the European Parliament receive money from that Parliament's budget for their day-to-day organisation, and that can leak through to the European political parties. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly, who knows what he is talking about because he has been in the European Parliament.
	To put it in simple termsas is often necessary for Conservative Membersit is as if some of the so-called Short money in the House of Commons leaked from the parliamentary Labour party to the Labour party, or from the parliamentary Conservative party to the Conservative party. We do not allow that, and with the new procedures, we want to build in exactly the same bars in the European Parliament as we have here.
	We must regulate to ensure that the funding of European political parties is fully transparent and properly audited, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly argued so convincingly. That is why the regulations recommended by the European Court of Auditors will combat financial mismanagement. I would have thought that we would have the wholehearted support of Conservative Members in that. That is why the principle of such regulation is supported by the PES and the ELDR, to which the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats respectively belong. It is also supported by the EPP, to which the Conservative party is alliedand to which, if the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe becomes leader, it will become affiliated. That is why member states are negotiating suitable regulation that will stop financial abuse. They are doing so under the provisions in article 308 of the EC treaty. We support that, and we want action as soon as possible to clean up such funding.

William Cash: Will the Minister come to the question of the definition and the criteria that enable people to qualify for those arrangements? The key question is what one stands for; if one stands for something outside European integration, one is clearly at risk.
	The Minister shakes his head, but that is the burden of the Schleicher report.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is erecting false phantoms. A report is a report; in the end, this is a matter for negotiation between Governments. The Nice treaty, by means of amended article 191 of the EC treaty, provides a specific new treaty base for such measures. Qualified majority voting will ensure that the provisions governing European political parties' funding are agreed, or, as necessary, updated speedily. No single member state will be able to block much needed reforms. That is important.
	The Opposition have made various charges, and I shall demolish them one by one.

Mark Francois: Does the Minister agree that it is possible to summarise the way in which parties would qualify for the money by saying that although it is not necessary to be fully in favour of European integration, it certainly helps?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is new, so I shall be charitable to himbut the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Stone applies to his question, too.
	The Opposition claimed that the measure would finance national parties. It will not. We secured at Nice, in explicit language, the condition that no European Community money going to European political parties would be transferred, directly or indirectly, to national political parties. Not a penny will go to the Labour party or to any other domestic British political party.
	The hon. Members for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) and for Stone implied that the measure amounted to funds for federalism. It does not. There will be no discrimination against parties on the grounds of their attitude to European Union integration. European political parties that oppose the EU, or its further integration, will be just as eligible as those that think the opposite. In the Nice treaty negotiations, the Government secured explicit language covering that matter too. We protected the interests of Opposition Members, and we ought to get a bit of credit for that for a change.
	The Nice treaty and the proposed regulation will not, as was suggested, give the EU the power to ban political parties. That is a ridiculous suggestion. It will not transfer power to the Community. The declaration that we agreed at Nice states:
	The conference recalls that the provisions of Article 191 do not imply any transfer of powers to the European Community and do not affect the application of the relevant national constitutional rules.
	Opposition Members have claimed that the treaty would discriminate against the Conservative party. It will not. The measure is to do with funding European political parties, not national ones. I am sorry that the Conservatives have not found a European political party that shares their agenda on Europe. That may change after the leadership election. The French Gaullists' decision to join will leave the Tories as the only major right wing party outside the group of the European People's party. That is their choice, and we do not quarrel with it. They can choose to join a European political party, or to form a new one that meets the objective criteria which will be laid down in the measures to be agreed. It is up to them. They can form their own party and qualify in exactly the same way that other parties do. There is no discrimination in that.
	The measure will improve financial accountability and rigour, and end abuses in the financing of European political parties. That is something that we would have expected the Opposition to welcome. The proposal to regulate European political parties is another plank in our European Union reform strategy. That is why we support it, and reject the amendments.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I have now to announce the result of the Divisions deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, the Ayes were 318, the Noes were 179, so the motion was agreed to.
	On the motion on Social Security, the Ayes were 324, the Noes were 178, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Further considered.

Richard Spring: First, I thank the Minister of State for his kind words about my political future. He is a shining and living example of life after death as a Foreign Office Minister, and I congratulate him on his ability to survive.
	The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) spoke about the funding of political parties. In practice and by definition, the prejudice will be against a national political party that does not wish to subscribe to an integrationist agenda and which thus escapes being cemented to a political grouping. The Minister understands that perfectly well.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) that we accept that there has been leakage. The idea that article 191 must be extended to deal with that leakage is absurd overreaction. There are very simple ways of dealing with leakage, and we would support them entirely. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we encourage debate among all political groupings in the EU.
	Sadly, the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) is not here, but he made some interesting contributions to the debate. He said that 7 million euros was a piffling amount of money, yet what is at stake is not the amount of money but the principle. In any case, the amount of money can be increased.
	I can tell the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) that we have no objection to the formation of political groupings. People have a democratic right to form such groupings. We are anxious to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of this important matter, which has been such a flashpoint in the EU. I am happy to pay tribute to the European Scrutiny Committee and all its members, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong to think that the Committee will be adequate when it comes to studying the measure. There should be total transparency with regard to finances, and nothing should be opaque.
	On scrutiny, I believe that, given the difficulties in the EU and the controversial aspects of the proposal, the debate about the measure should take place on the Floor of the House of Commons. I remind the House that new clause 4 states:
	Her Majesty's Government should lay before Parliament an annual report setting out the funds received by political parties at European level of which political parties represented in UK Parliament are members, pursuant to Article 2, paragraph 19 of the Treaty of Nice.
	The House exists to debate exactly such matters. Hon. Members should debate the difficulties that exist with regard to the public's attitude to the financing of political parties, and to the money associated with Members of Parliament and with Members of the European Parliament. The House is the place for that debate, and I am dismayed that the Minister has not supported such a non-controversial proposal.
	The new clause would strengthen the clarity of the EU. It would abolish the opacity that to a large extent causes the disconnection between the peoples of Europe and the institutions of the EU.
	I shall unhesitatingly press the new clause to a Division.

William Cash: I just want to say, by way of conclusion, that the matter is as serious as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said. The Minister has tended to underestimate its seriousness.
	We shall pursue the matter, both here and in the European Parliament. The measure is a direct attack on free speech, and an attempt to ensure that the Conservative party is put at a disadvantage, both in this House and in the European Parliament. We will continue to fight it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 194, Noes 360.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 6
	  
	Report on operation of Article 137 TEC, as revised

'Her Majesty's Government shall make a halfyearly report to Parliament on the implementation of Article 2, paragraph 9 of the Treaty of Nice, setting out the United Kingdom legislative and employment implications of Article 137 TEC, as revised.'.[Mr. Spring.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	It is now four years since the Government abandoned the opt-out from the social chapter. It is time for an assessment of its impact. New clause 6 would provide for just such an assessment on a regular basis.
	The treaty of Nice further extends the social chapter in article 137 TEC by adding two new fields to the list of those in which the Community
	shall support and complement the activities of Member States.
	The
	modernisation of social protection systems
	is a new item. It is already reflected to an extent in the existing provision on social protection of workers. However, crucially, that is decided unanimously. The new provision is different because it will be decided by QMV.
	The Government point out of course that QMV under the new provisions is limited to co-operation between the member states, and that harmonisation of their laws and regulations is explicitly excluded. Yet this will encourage the EU to put pressure on Governments to conform to so-called best practice when social protection systems are not considered modern enough.
	New clause 6 would not prevent the new provision from being implemented. It would, however, provide for a regular report on the evolution of the social chapter as a whole. If the Government are as sanguine as they claim about the social agenda in the EU, they presumably support the new clause. It would, after all, provide them with another opportunity to set out all the beneficial, deregulating measures that they claim that Europe is introducing. We wait for that with bated breath.
	A brief look at how the social chapter has developed over the last four years highlights why Opposition Members have serious concerns. We were told that signing the social chapter, with the attendant loss of the UK veto, simply did not matter. In 1995, the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, told the Confederation of British Industry that each piece of legislation under the social chapter would be judged on its merits. He said that he had
	no intention whatever of agreeing to anything and everything that emerges from the EU.
	That was in November 1995.
	On Second Reading of the Bill to ratify the Amsterdam treaty, the then Foreign Secretary reassured the House about the effect of signing up to the social chapter. He said:
	there is no danger of a flood of prescriptive, unrealistic regulations from Europe. There is a changed tone in Europe.
	He was particularly at pains to reassure the House about the then draft proposals for a general framework for informing and consulting employeesthe so-called national works councils directive. On this, he said, the Government would
	take our seat and make sure that the directive is amended in ways that reflect our thinking.[Official Report, 12 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 913-14.]
	That was his promise in 1997. Repeatedly, in recent months, the Government have reiterated both their opposition to the works councils directive and their confidence that they would be able to block it. Then, days after the general election, at the Employment and Social Policy Council on 11 June, the Government had to give in. Of course Ministers claim that the amendments that they achieved on issues such as the transition period mean that the text is now acceptable. So much for the principle that such issues are not for the EU to decide.
	In reality, of course, the Government had no choice but to accept the directive, because their blocking minority had melted awayat the end of what the Department of Trade and Industry briefing to MEPs euphemistically described as long and difficult negotiations. With that experience presumably fresh in the collective ministerial mind, is it not inexplicable and inexcusable that they are about to make the same mistake again, both with a general extension of QMV at Nice and specifically in relation to social measures? Does that not underline the need for regular reports on these matters? Instead of agreeing to extend the social chapter, as they did at Nice, the Government should be assessing the damage that is being caused by the articles already agreed.
	Does the Minister agree that the momentum on social policy continues to grow? Belgium's note on its presidency priorities states that it will
	include a strong social dimension and will pay special attention to the development of the European social model. Special emphasis will be put on quality of work, larger participation of employees with regard to economic mutations, equal opportunity, modernising social protection, combating social exclusion and poverty and the sustainability and re-financing of pensions.
	In the light of concerns expressed by employer organisations and others, bland Government assurances are no longer sufficient. It is time for a clear, open and honest assessment of the effects of the social chapter at times of economic downturn as well as of growth, and of new measures such as national works councils agreed under it.
	At Lisbon, the Prime Minister made a speech in which he painted a picture of a modern, outward-going Europe. He talked about benchmarking and the future of high technology, and of a Europe that was open to competition in a liberalising and deregulated way. The following week, that vision was rejected by the French Prime Minister, who talked about reinforcing the social agenda. The social agenda and the ethos that obtains now in the EU is out of date in a modern economy. I ask therefore that the Minister make clear to the Committee the implications of that.

Peter Hain: I apologise for missing the first moments of the hon. Gentleman's speech. New clause 6, which calls for a twice-yearly report to Parliament, is unnecessary. Both this House and another place already have arrangements for scrutinising legislative and other proposals that come from Europe, including those under article 137 of the treaty establishing the European Community. That is why we reject the new clause. Scrutiny procedures are already more than adequate.
	Social policy matters. It makes sense to work together where we can improve the lives of our citizens. That is why the treaty establishing the European Community includes provisions that allow for that. I remind the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and the rest of the Opposition that since Britain, under this Labour Government, signed up to the allegedly job-destroying, uncompetitive social chapter, we have created more than 1 million jobs in this country.

Richard Spring: The Government did?

Peter Hain: The Government have produced the macro and micro-economic conditions in which more than 1 million jobs have been created. In comparison, unemployment rose to more than 3 million when the Tory Government were in office.

Richard Spring: I hesitate to intervene, but the extent of job creation under the last Government was greater than during the last Parliament, under Labour. That is a fact.

Peter Hain: I am not sure whether we should go too far into that matter under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, but the truth is that unemployment rose to a record post-war high of more than 3 million during the 18 years when the Conservative Government were in office. I do not deny that unemployment started to decline towards the end of that period, but we now have an excellent record of falling unemployment. Employment has risen to an historic high in Britain while the social chapter has been in force.

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

Peter Hain: Not at the moment; I shall make a little progress, then I shall happily give way if there is time.
	On social policy issues, the Nice treaty essentially reordered the Amsterdam treaty. Voting by unanimity was retained in the following key areas: social security and the social protection of workers; protection of workers where their employment contracts are terminated; representation and collective defence of the interests of workers and employers; and conditions of employment for third- country nationals who legally reside in the Community.
	One new provision is the addition of a reference to the modernisation of social protection systems, which can take place by qualified majority voting. Such action is limited to the adoption of measures designed to encourage co-operation between member states and does not include legislationfor example, national action plans that involve the exchange of best practice among member states along the same lines as the social exclusion action plans.
	The Conservative party says that it is worried about expenditure, but changes that involve more national expenditure on such issues can be made only under article 137(1)(c) on social security and social protection of workers, which is still subject to unanimity and on which Britain can use its veto. Those are the old social chapter provisions and the Commission has yet to introduce any proposal under that article. Pay, the right of association, and the right to strike or to impose lock-outs continue to be excluded from the provisions of article 137.
	Article 137(4) has been amended to make it clear that any proposals agreed must not affect the right of member states to define the fundamental principles of their social security systems and must not significantly affect the financial equilibrium of national systemsan important and welcome clarification.
	As I am in a generous mood, I happily give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).

William Cash: I want to deal with the allegation that the Conservative party was somehow responsible for massive unemployment. Of course, the Minister will remember that one of the reasons why we got into serious difficulties with unemployment was the fact that we went into the fateful exchange rate mechanism. We have now left the ERM and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) was responsible for creating economic stability out of the ERM, but this Government will guarantee a return to it, because they are in favour of the principle of monetary union, and they will reincur the very problems that we managed to avoid only by withdrawing from that ridiculous system.

Peter Hain: The Chancellor has made it clear that no entry into the ERM is planned, and it was, of course, a Conservative Government, supported by the hon. Gentleman, who took us into the ERMa ridiculous policy when the value of the pound was ridiculously high, which caused many of the problems. I should correct the hon. Gentleman in a crucial respect: the massive increase in unemployment under the Thatcher Government occurred before we went into the ERM. The record high of more than 3 million people unemployed and the destruction of manufacturing jobs occurred in the early 1980s, well before the ERM. I shall go no further, except to say that the social chapterwhich gave rise to the little tirade of the hon. Member for West Suffolk, and about which I had to correct him on several mattersis an important provision that has been to Britain's advantage and strengthened our competitiveness. The new clause is unnecessary, and I hope that the Committee will reject it.

Menzies Campbell: I, too, believe that new clause 6 is unnecessary. The social chapter conferred on working people certain rights that they ought to have had in any event in well managed companies. In particular, the works councils directive allows consultation, and for employees to understand how companies work, which is entirely consistent with what modern business and management practice should be. Liberal Democrats have long supported works councils and the involvement and commitment that necessarily arises from the fact that employees are more directly involved and understand the nature of the company for which they work and its problems.
	It is worth remembering that we think that EU countries are blighted by over-generous social provision, but the United Kingdom's gross domestic product per capita is only 10th in the EU. Our living standards are 10th out of 15. Productivity in France and Germany is a fifth higher than in Britain. Given that reference has been made to the ERM, it is worth noting that since the launch of the single currency, employment growth in the eurozone has been twice as rapid as in Britain or the United States. Since 1997, in the eurozone, 4.7 million net new jobs have been created in economies that those who proposed the new clause would regard as being over-subject to social protection. With respect, the case in support of the new clause has not been made.

John Bercow: The Minister deployed his mellifluous tones and issued soothing bromides to the Committee in a fairly blatant bid to lull it into a false sense of security. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will not be taken in by the sedulous propagation of his case. There is no reason why we should be becalmed by his words, because we do not have to look into the crystal ball when we can read the book. The Minister made an entirely spurious point about the social chapter's introduction coinciding with an increase in employment as though there were a causal link. He should understandwe shall seek to educate him so that he is aware of this in futurethat the increase in employment has taken place not because of, but in spite of the contents of the European social chapter.

Peter Hain: The burden of the hon. Gentleman's and the Opposition's case against the social chapter is that it stops employment growth, and prevents companies from succeeding and the economy from growing, but precisely the opposite has happened. I suggest not that the huge rise in employment or fall in unemployment has taken place because of the social chapter, but that it has not stopped it happening and that it has, in fact, assisted the country's well-being while it has happened.

John Bercow: The Minister's ill-informed view is typical of the complacency that is the hallmark of the Government's attitude. I shall have the concurrence of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I suggest that we are far too unambitious in this country. We could have done much better. We could have grown faster and employed more people and we could have had a more thriving small and medium-sized enterprise sector in this country and throughout the EU were it not for the depredations of the social chapter in particular, and of overarching, over- zealous regulation by the EU in general. For example, if we consider the parental leave directive, we see what the costs to businesses are. If we consider the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, we recognise, as small business leaders do, how damaging they can be.
	On informing and consulting workers, the Minister must make the conceptual leap from believing that such measures are good to contending that there is a case for their imposition on this country by the EU. Such matters should be for individual businesses to determine or, alternatively, for democratically elected Members of this legislature to agree; they are not the proper business of the busybodies in the EU.
	It being Seven o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Orders [4 and 11 July], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	Question accordingly negatived.
	The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 7
	  
	Western European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

'This Act will not come into effect until Her Majesty's Government has laid before Parliament a report showing the implications for the Western European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, for the future functioning of these organisations, and for the United Kingdom's role therein, of Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 17 TEU, and Article 1, paragraph 5 of the Nice Treaty, revising Article 25 TEU.'.[Mr. Spring.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 398.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 12
	  
	Referendum (No. 1)

'This Act shall not take effect prior to the laying before Parliament of the draft of an Order in Council making provision for ascertaining, by means of a referendum, the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the provisions of the Treaty signed at Nice on 26th February 2001, provided that the Order shall not be made unless separate provision has been made by Parliament for defraying out of public funds any expenses to be incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government Department in carrying the Order into effect.'.[Mr. Spring.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Richard Spring: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: New clause 37Referendum (No. 3)
	'This Act shall not take effect until the laying before Parliament of the draft of an Order in Council making provision for ascertaining, by means of referendum, the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the provisions of the provisions of the Treaty signed at Nice on 26th February 2001 amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, provided that the Order shall not be made unless separate provision has been made by Parliament for defraying out of public funds any expenses to be incurred by a Minister of the Crown or Government departments in carrying the Order into effect.'.
	New clause 44Referendum (No. 4)
	'.This Act shall not take effect prior to the laying before Parliament of a draft Order making provision for the ascertaining by the Government of the preponderance of national opinion with respect to the Nice Treaty by means of a referendum (providing that the Order shall not be made until provision from public funds has been made by Parliament in respect of expenditure incurred in the undertaking of such a referendum).'.

Richard Spring: New clause 12 calls for a referendum on the treaty of Nice, which would put to the test the direction in which the European Union is heading. At the beginning of the Committee stage, the question was posed whether the Bill would assist the development of an enlarged, diverse Europe that enhances the security and prosperity of the peoples of Europe. We believe that the treaty of Nice fails that test.
	How can the European Union on the verge of enlargement think that the right course is to become ever more integrated? Surely trying to squeeze a continent of nations in all their diversity into a rigid straitjacket of conformity and uniformity is a recipe for discontent, disunity and disharmony. What was needed at Nice was a Government with the leadership required to press for an alternative approach resulting in a modern, reformed, flexible Europe.
	There is a fundamental difference between the Government and the Opposition on the direction in which Europe should be heading. That difference is crystallised in the treaty of Nice. We believe that it is time to let the public have a say on the matter. Instead, as Europe moves further down the integrationist path, there seems to be an ever-growing gap between the views of the public and the leaders of the European Union. That view was endorsed by the newly plain-speaking and born-again Minister for Europe, so there can be no controversy about it.
	The gulf cannot be allowed to continue to develop. We have all witnessed the undercurrent of discontent around the EU, which is highly regrettable. The EU cannot afford to remain impervious to the trends of change across the world and expect to succeed. Through the low turnouts in European elections and failing support in opinion polls, the people of Europe have sent a clear message to their Governments. That message is that real unity cannot be imposed by integrationist treaties and diktat, thereby disconnecting European institutions and structures from the legitimate aspirations of the peoples of Europe.
	Last September the Danish people made their views clear when they voted no to membership of the euro. Then, in March, the Swiss rejected early membership of the European Union by a ratio of 4:1. Whatever the merits of the case for Swiss membership, the result ought at least to give those of us who are members of the EU cause to pause and think why it came about.
	Does the Minister agree that the EU's reaction to the Irish referendum speaks volumes about the extent to which EU leaders have become detached from their citizens? Why did the Foreign Secretary, days after the referendum, sign up to the General Affairs Council conclusions, which stated that the Nice treaty would remain unaltered? What do the citizens of Europe need to do to get their leaders to listen?
	Does the Minister agree with the diplomat who was reported as saying:
	If there had been a referendum in every country, half would have voted against it. The Irish were acting as proxies for the rest of us and this needs to be handled with care?
	Does the hon. Gentleman have sympathy for the Irish Republic's Minister of Finance, Mr. McCreevy, who described the Irish rejection of the Nice treaty as a remarkably healthy development, or for the Irish Republic's Attorney-General, who said:
	We have as much right as any member state, or indeed the commission, to develop and articulate and advocate our view of the future architecture of the European Union?
	It is time for the United Kingdom Government to show the same respect for the views of the British people on the Nice treaty. Following the Foreign Secretary's recognition of the fact that the Nice treaty is not legally or technically necessary for enlargement, the last remaining fig leaf for the treaty has been removed. Indeed, further integration will make enlargement more difficult, not easier.
	If Ministers think that the Nice treaty is as popular as they claim, why are they so reluctant to put it to the test? Perhaps the reported comments of the Belgian Foreign Minister last week give us an indication. His remarks were specifically directed at Austria but clearly have wider application. He said:
	I personally think it is very dangerous to organise referendums when you're not sure to win them.
	That attitude of mind is deeply regrettable. When European Union leaders are not sure that they can win over the people on the benefits of a treaty, surely it is time to question the treaty itself, rather than the idea of giving the people a say.
	In the past two days, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have set out what has been reported as a fresh Government approach to Europe. We welcome that, but the Nice treaty takes Europe in precisely the opposite direction of that in which they want to go. The Minister said that he wants a Europe of the people and not elites, but the treaty takes power away from the people and the Governments whom they elect and transfers it to the EU level. It increases the number of occasions on which the minority can be overridden by qualified majority voting. It enhances the role of the European Court and of the Commission and its Presidenta matter that we did not have time to discuss yesterday. Community competence is extended in commercial policy and the remit of the court is increased.
	The Minister says that he wants Europe to modernise and that its economy should be reformed, and yet the treaty reinforces the social chapter, signalling further red tape and regulation. That is the very approach that has caused Europe to lag behind in terms of job creation and the economic outlook of eurozone countries. The treaty represents a failure even on the Government's terms.

Joyce Quin: The hon. Gentleman will recall that he voted against the idea of a referendum on the Maastricht treaty on 21 April 1993, when the matter was debated in the House. Presumably he did so because he supported the powerful arguments against a referendum that were advanced by the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Hurd. Which of Lord Hurd's arguments does he no longer supportand why, given that the Maastricht treaty was more far-reaching than the Nice treaty?

Richard Spring: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to clarify the situation. The past eight years have seen a remorseless and one-way process of political integration. Nice provided an opportunity for the Government to begin to reverse that process. I am sure that the right hon. Lady agrees that the great challenge for the European Union is to connect with the peoples of Europe and to deal with the so-called democratic deficit. One of the clearest ways of doing that would be to return powers to the national Parliaments. In the intervening eight years, the process of integration has advanced remorselessly. We want to draw a line at this point and to involve the peoples of Europe. The right hon. Lady will acknowledge that acceptance, appreciation and support of the European Union is now low in most countries and is still ebbing away. All hon. Members will accept that that is regrettable. It is now time to incorporate the peoples of this country and Europe into the process.

Wayne David: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that less legislation is now coming from the European Union than was coming from it four years ago?

Richard Spring: We are dealing with the treaty of Nice and its implications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has listened carefully to the Committee's debates. We have discovered not only that the Government repeatedly changed their mind before Nice, but that, as the Minister's answers have shown today, they simply did not think through the implications of what they agreed to there. That is the point about this Committee stage.
	The Minister has said that he wants Europe to modernise and reform its economy, but the treaty represents a failure even on the Government's terms. The loss of the veto is far wider than they envisaged. Indeed, they originally opposed the measures on enhanced co-operation. The treaty increases the size of the European Parliament beyond the limit that they set for themselves. Steps have been taken towards the regulation and funding of Europe-wide political parties, but the Government originally resisted them. A bad scene was set earlier, when relevant new clauses were rejected and Labour Members declined to allow adequate scrutiny of that process to occur in the House of Commons. I believe that the Government will regret following the route that they have taken.
	By contrast, where in the treaty is the evidence of the positive and determined engagement with our European counterparts for which the Minister is now calling? He says that he is a practical European, but where are the practical measures that he supports? Where is the signal that Europe will involve itself less in our daily lives? Where is the reform of the common agricultural policy, which Lord Haskins calls one policy fits all and is clearly the biggest single obstacle to enlargement? Where is the call for a multi-system Europe and real flexibility, which should move in a non-integrationist direction?
	The lack of leadership from the United Kingdom Government means that even further integration is likely to be agreed upon at the next intergovernmental conference in 2004. As was clear in the Prime Minister's speech at Warsaw, the Government have lacked any clear vision of the architecture and structures that would enable the European Union to reconnect with the British people and the peoples of Europe. The idea that a second Chamber will achieve such a reconnection is absurd. Indeed, that was pointed out by Liberal Democrat MEP Nick Clegg in his pamphlet, which dealt with the matter very effectively.
	At the Nice Council, European Union leaders agreed to discuss the status of the charter of fundamental rights, although British Ministers had tried to claim that the matter was settled. They agreed to discuss what would, in effect, be a written constitution for the European Union. Does not that alone illustrate the Government's complete failure to provide leadership in setting out an agenda that is right for a modern Europe and which reflects the wishes of the British people?
	The Minister has emphasised in his recent statements the need for the European Union to start the process of reconnecting with the citizens of its member states. There could be no clearer signal that the Government mean what they say than putting the treaty to a referendum. It is time for the British people to have their say. I see from new clause 44 that that principle has support on both sides of the House. I welcome that support. The issue transcends the party political divide, as it is crucial to incorporate the people of this country into the process. I commend the new clause to the Committee.

Frank Field: I rise to speak to new clause 44, on which I welcome the concluding comments of the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring). Indeed, I am sure that the Opposition so welcome it that he will seek to withdraw the motion on new clause 12. In the same way, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will doubtless decide not to press new clause 37, and we will instead have the opportunity to vote on new clause 44, which provides a small test of how much Opposition Front Benchers genuinely seek agreement across the Floor of the House.
	Mr. Haselhurst, I oppose many aspects

Anne McGuire: Sir Alan.

Frank Field: I am sorry. I almost feel that I should genuflect, Sir Alan. As always, I am grateful for the guidance of the Front Bench on these matters. Sir Alan, I think

The Chairman: Order. I do not want to make the right hon. Gentleman uncomfortable. The phrase Mr. Chairman would do.

Frank Field: Too many people have taken the poetry out of life, Sir Alan. I think that calling you Mr. Chairman would in some way detract from our proceedings.
	I oppose aspects of the Nice treaty. In it, this country surrenders the sovereignty that it currently holds over 39 areas. However, I may be wrong, and if the British people wish to surrender that sovereignty, it would be proper for the House to agree that approach. Some of my constituents who take an interest in such matters know that the argument that the Nice treaty will halt integration is bogus. The Amsterdam treaty grants the authority for introducing the next round of likely candidates. To question the Nice treaty is not to question the wisdom, the speed or the ultimate aim of including many new member states.
	New clause 44 raises profound questions about this country's future and that of Europe. I, like my hon. Friends, speak as a citizen and friend of Europe and someone who knows that our destiny is bound up with the continent of Europe, as it has been since Tudor times. We also appreciate that those who began the journey in the early post-war years did so for the best of motives. They had witnessed two world warsmany had fought in bothwhich wrought havoc on the structure not only of their lives but of their country. In the 1940s, setting up a European Community was a most noble project. However, if we listened carefully to our constituents during the last European election campaign, we would know that their image of Europe is different from the objectives of the founding fathers all those years ago.
	I want to repeat some of the phrases that my constituents used about the great journey on which we have embarked. They believe that we are on a juggernaut which has an automatic pilot. Its controls were set in the 1940s; it has no brake and no steering wheel. For those reasons, those of us who are friends of Europe, but critical of current developments in the European Community, support new clause 44.
	There is a case for greater co-operation. Making it divides us into two camps on our perception of the nature of politics. Some believe that it is a technical process, which can be gleaned from books, and that one can write treaties and make policies in that way. Others believe that, although the technical process can play a part, successfully achieving our long-term political objectives requires understanding of the political culture in which one works and that of other countries with which we are increasingly integrated.
	I want to emphasise the importance of natural developments, which the Nice treaty ignores. The Guardian produced a recent opinion poll of readers' views of European policy. It illustrates the divide that I mentioned. It showed huge scepticism about the single currency. Voters do not understand the reason for the way in which the project is presented, or the endgame. However, the same group of voters supported sharing sovereignty on issues such as the environment so that the policy in Europe could be more comprehensive. Such policies cannot be bound by the old nation states.
	I tabled new clause 44 as a friend of Europe. However, I am not prepared to take just anything from a project that was conceived in the 1940s, no matter how noble the objective. During my vain efforts to persuade my constituents to vote in the European elections, the worst comments revealed that they viewed Europe as a thieves' kitchen. They notice that, for example, when the Danish people are consulted about the euro, they reject it, and that when the Irish people are asked about Nice, they reject the treaty. However, they also notice that when such votes are allowed in a small minority of countries, the machine tries to get the project on the road again by dismissing the voters' views.
	The machine decides that the euro will be reconsidered in Denmark, and that, in time, the Danish people will accept it. The President of the European Commission has made absurd statements about the way in which Ireland will ultimately submit to his plans. To an enemy of the European Community, the President of the European Commission is worth every euro or penny we pay him, because we could not have a worse ambassador. He spells out his views of what other people's opinions should be.
	New clause 44 goes to the heart of what the Prime Minister describes as the Government's approach in Europe. In a recent speech, he rejected the top-down approach. He perceived its limitations and failures, and said that the Government would adopt a bottom-up approach. How does that accord with pushing through the Nice treaty without giving the people of this country an opportunity to say whether they support its main ideas? Although the Prime Minister's name is not on new clause 44, I have tabled it in his spirit.
	Our approach to Europe has entered a new age. The old brutal approach whereby a small group of people could ram diverse traditions into a technical process, conceived 50 years ago, should be rejected. If we are serious about reconnecting with the voters, and if that phrase is not simply the latest bit of cant served up to appease them, Labour Members will vote for new clause 44.

Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman's excellent speech, which has impressed me. I am worried about his initial comments. He referred to the possibility of the Opposition withdrawing new clause 12 in favour of new clause 44. What was the reason for that suggestion? It would be appalling for the Opposition to withdraw a new clause on such a fundamental issue. Was the right hon. Gentleman joking? We are not good at understanding jokes. However, perhaps he meant it. That has worried me throughout his speech, which I have thoroughly enjoyed and with which I agree.

Frank Field: I am not sure whether that was a double bluff. The Opposition's position is well known. They believe that, from now on, the people of Europe, or at least of this country, should be consulted about any major rearrangement of the furniture of Europe. They do not need to make a point. They say that they wish to get past point scoring and standing on precedentan approach that bores the votersand I therefore believed that they would respond to a genuine appeal, which was based on nothing other than hope. My constituents hope that we shall cease to play the silly game of party politics on big issues, and try to be as grown up as them.

William Cash: If the right hon. Gentleman is expecting the official Opposition to withdraw their new clause or, indeed, me to withdraw mine, will he give us an assurance that, if we were to vote on his new clause, the Government would reverse the situation that pertains at the moment and give us a referendum on the Nice treaty? It seems that the right hon. Gentleman is simply asking us to do something without having the capacity to deliver it.

Frank Field: I have no capacity to deliver anything. We would have to win the vote before there could be any instruction to the House. I have spent most of my parliamentary life on the Opposition Benches, as part of a party that could not win elections, although, thankfully, we now can. But even in those dark days we realised that if we were trying to maximise a vote, it was always sensible for the Opposition to group behind any movement by the Government rather than, as a point of principle or for some kind of textbook reason, tabling their own new clause.

William Cash: I am interested in the national interest and in having a referendum. If I thought that there was a genuine opportunity to defeat the Government, as we did on the issue of Select Committees a couple of days ago, I would be happy to withdraw my new clause in favour of the right hon. Gentleman's. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some tangible evidence that, if I did that, it would do some good?

Frank Field: Either the hon. Gentleman is trying to extend this debate until the crucial hour at which we all wish it to end, or he is genuinely confused about this matter. There is no way in which I can give him that assurance. The only way we can try to influence Government opinion is to pass a new clause tonight. The Government would then have to try to reverse it. All I am suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman is that the likelihood of winning that vote will be increased if we vote on new clause 44 rather than on those tabled by the Opposition or by the hon. Gentleman. It is in the spirit of doing what is best for this country that I have tabled new clause 44 and I hope that, between now and 9.30pm, sense will prevail on the Opposition Benches.

Menzies Campbell: I, too, followed with great interest the thoughtful speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I regret to say that I disagreed with almost all of it. I feel buttressed in the correctness of that conclusion by the fact that we have just fought a general election campaign in which one of the main political parties offered a referendum to the people of the United Kingdom on the treaty of Nice, and that party was comprehensively defeated.

Frank Field: May I suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Conservative party could not win the election and, therefore, whatever the party in government was proposing would have been approved? It would be dangerous for Labour Members to assume that voters were not interested in lower taxation or in the euro. They did not think that those issues should feature in the general election because they did not think that the group of people masquerading as Her Majesty's Opposition was fit to be elected.

Menzies Campbell: As a result of that intervention, the right hon. Gentleman may find it more difficult to persuade the official Opposition to abandon their new clause and vote in support of his. In reaching my conclusions on this matter, I have started from a quite different place from the right hon. Gentleman, and we shall have to accept that.
	I am sure that there is amazement on the banks of the Liffey, astonishment in Galway and surprise in Sligo that the decision taken by the Irish people should have been elevated to such an extraordinary level of importance by a party that still, in some parts of the United Kingdom, describes itself as the Unionist party. Irish politicians will be astonished that they have now achieved the status of prophetsin this debate, if not in their own landbecause of observations that they have made about the consequences of what happened in Ireland as a result of a referendum that arose out of an entirely different constitutional settlement from the one that obtains here in the United Kingdom.
	I do not believe that the decision of the people of Ireland should be allowed to intrude on the decision- making processes of the people of the United Kingdom. The fact that the people of Ireland decided that they did not want the treaty of Nice to be ratified in their constitutional arrangements may be a matter of some procedural consequence to the ultimate ratification and acceptance of the treaty by all the members of the European Union. However, it should not form any part of an argument in this Parliament, or in this country, about whether the treaty requires the endorsement of the British people through a referendum before it can be ratified.
	I go back to the recent general election campaign. It seems like a long time ago; in fact, it was only about eight weeks. The position of Conservative Members, who have tabled the new clause, was that their party would have refused to sign the treaty of Nice and it would have gone to Gothenburg immediately after the general election in the confident expectation that it could renegotiate the terms of the treaty.
	No great constitutional issues are raised by the treaty of Nice. Taxation, social security and defence remain firmly in the intergovernmental sphere, and firmly subject to unanimity. There will be a great constitutional step for this country to take if the Government of the day ever recommend that we join the single European currency. That will be a decision not only of economic management but of political and constitutional significance. That is why the former leader of my party, whom we must now learn to call Lord Ashdown, was the first to say that it was an issue of such importance that it ought to be the subject of a referendum, and that we should not join without the endorsement of the people of the United Kingdom. That will be a decision of a quite different degree and different substance from those on the procedural issuesthe housekeeping issues, as I have previously described themthat are embraced by the treaty of Nice.
	The claim for the need for a referendum was a catch-allquite legitimately, one might argue, in the context of a general election campaign. It was something behind which all the Conservative candidates could cluster. It was a form of protection and of defence. However, one of those who was a prominent participant in the leadership contest and who is now to seek the verdict of the Conservative membership in the country holds a view of the treaty that is entirely consistent with the view that I have just expressed.
	A referendum should not be used as an act of party politics. It should be employed sparingly in circumstances in which there are principled issues of constitutional consequence. There are no such circumstances in this case. I return to a point that I made on Second Reading. Where are the people besieging the House of Commons saying, You should not be allowed to pass the legislation on the ratification of the treaty of Nice unless you ensure that we, the people, have a referendum on the matter? As I said before, people have been breaking into Menwith Hill and protesting against national missile defence. Our postbags are filled with arguments about that, about health and about education. The notion that there is an unsatisfied popular demand out there for a referendum on the treaty of Nice is certainly not supported by my experience. Furthermore, I have not yet heard convincing arguments from others who have spoken in this debate or on previous occasions that their own experience mirrors an unsatisfied demand that this legislation should not pass into law unless it contains the provision for a referendum.

Richard Spring: If such a referendum took place, what does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think the outcome would be? I know what I think it would be and that answers his question.

Menzies Campbell: If there were a referendum on the treaty, it would return a substantial verdict of affirmationa verdict of yes that supported ratificationbecause we would have had the opportunity to conduct the argument in an intelligent and civilised way to which people would respond.
	I have to tell the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) that, in my judgment, one of the consequences of the indiscriminate use of the referendum in a representative parliamentary democracy is an undermining of the very principle of parliamentary democracy, unless we can point to an issue that is of such fundamental constitutional importance that it requires Parliament to go to the people to seek their endorsement. The treaty justifies neither euphoria nor hysteria. It provides a framework for enlargement, which Members on both sides of the House support.

William Cash: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it has been made clear as a result of discussions and altercations with Romano Prodi when he was in Ireland that the decision taken by the Irish people has nothing to do with enlargement and that the Nice treaty itself has nothing to do with enlargement? Enlargement could take place under the Amsterdam treaty.

Menzies Campbell: That issue was fully canvassed on Second Reading and during the speech of the Foreign Secretary. Yes, the EU could be enlarged without the Nice treaty, but what sort of enlarged EU would it be? We would create a monster in which every country would be entitled to two Commissioners and the veto would be available to even the smallest country with the smallest population and the smallest gross domestic product.
	If we are to have an enlarged Union, we must have a Union whose procedures allow for the effective management of that Union, subject, of course, to qualifications for the protection of countries such as ours and the smaller countries. An enlarged EU could be achieved without the treaty, but I venture to suggest that were there to be such an enlarged EU, the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would be the first to declare it unmanageable, far too large and having reached a point at which it served no further purpose. Let me conclude

John Bercow: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Menzies Campbell: I must sit down. The hon. Gentleman may succeed in catching your eye, Sir Alan.
	This is a framework treaty for a sensible enlargement and I believe that it should be ratified as soon as possible.

Alan Simpson: I want to make my own arguments in favour of a referendum on the treaty by drawing mainly on comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Europe in his article in The Independent at the beginning of the week. He is absolutely right to say
	this is an appeal for plain speaking on Europe. No political spin, no media hype, no pejorative prejudice. Just an honest, straight discussion of difficult but momentous issues.
	That is the context in which we ought to approach the issues raised in the treaty and how it connects to the treaties that preceded it, because momentous consequences follow from it. We do ourselves and the public a great disservice when we suggest that it is a leftovers treatya tidying-up exercise of no great import either to the United Kingdom public or the future shape of Europe, the costs of it, and the political consequences that will be experienced by Europe. The British public have a right to be part of that informed debate.
	The Minister's article continued:
	I am up for a robust debate and I respect different views, sincerely held, about Europe's future. But we need an intelligent debate about what is really happeningnot a debate trapped in a time-warp caricature of doughty Britons versus fiendish foreigners.
	Again, I endorse that wholeheartedly. We have to address how we achieve that informed debate and how we take the public with us. This is the important point. When I was elected to Parliament, I understood that that mandate was conditional and that the party that won the majority of seats in the election had a mandate to govern, but that it had to be renewed. The mandate was not eternal; it was not unconditional.
	Each time a period of office runs out, a Government have to present themselves to the public in another form of referendumone on their competence to form a Government who govern in the public's name. The presumption was always that Governments who made a mess by introducing unpopular policies could be thrown out by an electorate who were fed up with them. Throwing out the Government of the day was a channel whereby people could reject the policies of the day that they found so objectionable. The important point about the succession of European treaties that we have been presented with is how many of them have stripped from Governments the ability to offer the electorate any such choice.
	There are genuine dangers for the democratic process if we are saying to people, Why vote when you can replace a Government, but not the policies that they will inflict on you? The same policies, acceptable or otherwise, will be pushed down your throat whoever is in power. The credibility of the House, the institution of Parliament and the democratic basis on which Parliament gets a conditional mandate is seriously undermined as we strip from ourselves the rights of the public to make those choices.

John Bercow: With reference to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no great public clamour for a referendum on the Nice treaty because the debate on the subject has thus far been characterised by waffle, verbiage and obfuscation? That is why, there is no great public demand. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so confident of the strength of his arguments and that public opinion is with him, he should be prepared to put his view to the test? If he is not, we can draw our own conclusions.

Alan Simpson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that the ultimate test of our confidence in the public is to allow them to make choices for themselves. That is precisely what we have not done on a succession of European treaties. It is a perverse form of logic and justification to say, We never gave the public a choice on Amsterdam and we never gave them a choice on Maastricht, so we had better not give them a choice on Nice either. That is like saying, We never fed the kids yesterday or the day before, so we may as well not feed them tomorrow. At some point, we must take responsibility for feeding the democratic process. If we do not, we will have to take responsibility for the withering away of that process.

Menzies Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as he has referred to me if not directly, then at least by implication. Would he care to tell the House on what criteria he would base a decision as to whether to require a referendum in any particular case before the ratification of any treaty relating to our membership of the EU?

Alan Simpson: The question is one of reversibility and amendability. The public have a right to decide on any decision we make that is irrevocable, or irrevocable unless colossal upheavals throw the institutional arrangements in Europe into crisis.
	Parliaments have a right to make decisions within the conditionality of the mandates that they receive. Those mandates are renewable, not disposable. My fear is that Parliament has drifted down a path whereby it is treating temporary authority given to it by the public as though it has the right to dispose of the public's right to change their mind.

Stephen Ladyman: Although I do not agree with my hon. Friend, I commend him on his thoughtful speech. I agree with him that reversibility and amendability are good criteria for holding a referendum, but I do not see what in the treaty is not reversible, if that were decided in the future. Joining the euro is irreversible and requires a referendum, but can my hon. Friend tell me what in this treaty is not reversible?

Alan Simpson: I should be delighted to answer that point, because that is the substance of my argument. If the public are to have confidence in Parliament, we must have confidence in them and ensure that they are the deciders rather than the decided for. Two central issues of the treaty have been misunderstood: one relates to an aspect of enlargement and the other to the move to qualified majority voting.
	There has been a lack of clarity about the costs of enlargement. Germany made an incredible commitment to meet the costs of unification. Amazing transfers of cash from west to east were made to pay for a unifying, inclusive future in which all German citizens would have a place, a future, a sense of security and identity. I have enormous admiration for what Germany has done, but it has not come without a cost. So far it has cost the German public 150 billion. They have just signed up to an extension of the solidarity taxation to 2020, so have voluntarily levied on themselves a further 100 billion in taxation to pay for inclusion.
	The economy of the former East Germany is stronger than those of any of the applicant states that will be part of the enlargement process, apart, perhaps, from the Czech Republic and Poland. Yet the costs of their transformation will not be met by additional resource transfers.
	If we want expansion on the current model, we must be honest with ourselves and the public, and acknowledge what the costs will be and where they will paid from.

Mark Hendrick: I suggest that my hon. Friend is misrepresenting what took place in Germany. At the time, there was an exchange rate of DM1 to OM1, which was totally unrealistic. The experience of German reunification led to the Maastricht convergence criteria. Deficits, interest rates and inflation were used as criteria to be brought to bear before a currency union could take place. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, our having had that experience and having established the Maastricht convergence criteria, the instability caused by German reunification in no way compares with or relates to the currency union that has taken place in the European Union?

Alan Simpson: Absolutely not. The issue was not the disparity between the deutschmark and the ostmark, but the physical, practical, structural and huge economic disparity between east and west.

Mark Hendrick: Convergence does that.

Alan Simpson: No. Convergence requires the collapse of economies. Demands are being made on applicant states that will result in the collapse of their economies in order to meet the convergence criteria, and they will be left with increased poverty and an increased need for social, financial and structural transfers. I do not want to duck the issue. If that is the price we must pay to build a cohesive European future, it may be worth paying, but we must be honest about it. At the moment, we are having an Alice in Wonderland debate. We are pretending that enlargement can take place, and that the eastern European applicant states can be required to collapse their economies. We are not acknowledging that stability will have to be delivered in an expanded EU by huge resource transfers from west to east or we will face huge population movements from places where jobs and wealth have disappeared to places where people presume they are located. We owe it to the public and to ourselves to be clear about the consequences, and allow the public to make a choice.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely powerful case. Way back during the debates on the Maastricht treaty I said that I could not believe that my own Government were deliberately creating unemployment. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) made a powerful speech on the relationship between enhanced co-operation and prospective taxation, which Hans Eichel has said must be one of the necessary ingredients of these arrangements. The plain fact is that the hon. Gentleman is right that there is huge deceit, and the only way to resolve the problem and to make resources available for this fateful European UnionI do not agree with the manner in which it is being developedis with the consent of the voters, on a properly informed basis.

Alan Simpson: That is precisely the case that I am trying to make. I am giving examples to show why it is important for the public to have the right to decide these issues. It is critical that we address these problems not in a spirit of isolationism but, perhaps perversely, out of a sense of solidarity.
	I was contacted by organisations in Poland that work in conjunction with the Polish farmers union, which represents 3 million Polish farmers. It argues that, so as to meet the convergence criteria, Poland is being asked to accept the imposition of huge reforms to its agricultural system, which will put 2 million of the 3 million farm workers out of work.

William Cash: Where is the money coming from?

Alan Simpson: That is one of the questions that the Polish farmers union asked me to raise here. It also wanted us to consider whether this model of expansion is genuinely sustainable.

Wayne David: Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we should be in favour of maintaining east European command-style economies with their huge, unpredictable practices.

Alan Simpson: I am not making that case. There is a positive alternative on offer to Polish agriculture. My hon. Friend may not be a great fan of Polish agriculture, but it feeds itself, has a strong basis of family farming, a huge infrastructure of local markets, food accountability and a biodiversity that does not fit with the demands being made on it by the European Union to take a leap into a future based on industrial agriculture.
	Many global environmental movements are forewarning us of the colossal dangers if the demands of industrial agriculture that are being foisted on the European Union and on countries through the World Trade Organisation are a condition of enlargement. What the Polish people were asking me is this: why can we not have a debate about enlargement on different terms? Why can the British people not make a positive decision that is in favour of a European sense of solidarity, rather than a retreat from it?
	The general election manifesto on which I understand at least half the Polish parties are campaigning asks us in the existing EU member states to support their claims for
	a conscious policy . . . to protect and promote the values of the Polish countryside, in opposition to rapidly spreading globalisation.
	It wants us to
	recognise that the way in which to ensure optimum public and environmental health is through promoting a diet based on high quality local foods, and a countryside rich in natural bio-diversity.
	What in that agenda is so unacceptable to us? Why should we not engage with it? Why can we not offer that to the public as a positive choice when it comes to a model of expansion? At present there is no choice, but a given, defined model that has been foisted on us. I fear that that is the direction in which we are being taken.
	There is another fundamental problem that requires a referendum and the public's right to vote. I am talking about the counter side: alongside the physical expansion of EU membership is a clear democratic contraction, not just in the context of qualified majority voting. I do not subscribe for a moment to the argument that QMV is a grand German plot for the domination of Europe. That is a gross insult to the German people's integrity, and their commitment to European stability. My objections, which I consider central to the British public's right to make a decision, are based on the fact that QMV is not really about the weighting of votes in favour of politicians or political parties from different countries. The real, fundamental shift is not from a decision made in the House of Commons to a decision made in the Council of Ministers; it is the decision-making process that will be hijacked by the European Commission.
	There is an important background to this, which the House and the country need to understand. There has been a continuing dispute between the Commission and the Council of Ministers about the Commissioners' prerogative to make decisions on everyone's behalf. It goes back to the 1994 Uruguay round, when the Commissioners argued that they alone were competent to negotiate on European matters on our behalf.
	At the time our Ministers, and other Ministers, argued that that was not so. They said that trade in services and trade in intellectual property were areas of what was described as mixed competence, rather than Community competence. The significance of that argument was this: in areas of mixed competence, our Ministers are part of direct negotiations on policies that affect our citizensinternational negotiations. Many such negotiations have been thrown into turbulent conflict in the World Trade Organisation, in Seattle and beyond. None of us should pretend that those are not some of the big conflict areas with which our society must deal in the future.
	We shall be left with this question: when the public are clamouring on our doorsteps or letters pour into our postbags, on how many of those areas will we be able to make any decisions ourselves? How many, under the treaty, will we have signed away, so that we have no competence? Surely the public should have the right to choose which areas of competence to cede.
	I want to illustrate what this means in practical terms, and so explain how it affects issues raised by members of all parties and their constituents. Those will be the issues on which there will be conflict in the future. Even in the short term of this Parliament, the Government have embarked on a robust and interesting debate about the role of the private sector in public services. We have been told that none of the arrangements involved in the GATSgeneral agreement on trade in servicesnegotiations would automatically apply here, because we can choose what we will not be a part of. However, as the issue moves into the sphere of Community competence, two things happen.
	First, our Ministers have no relevance in the negotiations; they are conducted solely and exclusively by the European Commissioners. The Nice treaty offers the Commissioners a wonderful resolution of something that really cheesed them off following the Uruguay round. They took their case to the European Court of Justice, which ruled that countries had ceded the right to negotiate in the trade in goods but not the right to negotiate in the trade in services, and that the arrangement did not apply to commercial aspects of intellectual property rights.
	The Nice treaty has tied things up nicely for the Commissioners. They win the battle for the sole right to negotiate on everyone's trade terms, because we decide to give them that right. The mechanism of qualified majority voting will be much easier to manipulate than an arrangement giving individual countries the right to say no. That is profoundly important to those with an interest in environmental sustainability. In the Montreal convention, we set out the right of countries to apply the precautionary principleto say no when they did not know. Handing over the negotiating rights for all trade leaves us one step short of being told by the Commissioners that we no longer have any such authority.
	The Welsh, who have fought hard for Wales to remain a zone free of genetically modified organisms, may well be told that they have no right to restrict the planting of GM crops there, because that would constitute indirect interference with trade. The patent rights that the biotech companies have acquired are followed by rights to plant, grow and sell. For those with environmental concerns, it is just tough luck. They no longer have authority to make decisions in their own right in areas in which they have ceded decision-making and negotiating rights to the European Commissioners.
	If we wanted warning of that, we should have paid attention to the role that Pascal Lamy attempted to play as trade negotiator in Seattle. We were saved by the role played by some of our own Ministers, who flatly stated that they would not reach an agreement with the biotech corporations. Pascal Lamy is on public record as saying, I will go and negotiate an agreement. Only the fact that he had not the authority to do so stopped the process, and allowed us to make those decisions. We will have to explain to the British public why we no longer have any authority to implement policies on which they feel passionately.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) asked where the postbag was. The postbag will bypass us if we hand over the pass on the right to make responsible decisions relating to our stewardship of those people's environment and the shape of their society. As for services, a remit will be extended to the Commissioners to address rail services, postal services, health services and education services.
	We should not kid ourselves that we can have a debate here that presumes that we can make decisions. Perhaps we should remind those in Downing street that the party stands for a strong commitment to public delivery of public services; but even if we do that, Downing street may tell us, You can say what you like, but the policies are no longer made here. We now have obligations that are determined at European level, rather than prerogatives that can be determined at national parliamentary level.
	Provisions on intellectual property rights will extend to the whole domain of our policies in respect of GMOs. On sustainable trade, when we seek to deal with climate change and to impose payback economicspay back to the planet, not just to shareholderswe are likely to find that that is in breach of the decision-making authority that we have handed over to the European Commissioners, who will conduct the negotiations.
	On environmental protection, I have a particular interest in the notion of producer liability. There is a desperate cry for the UK to introduce legislation that will at least define who is liable for genetic contamination of the environment in respect of GM crop trials. Farmers, supermarkets and local communities want to know that. There is huge pressure on us to bring in producer liability legislation.

William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Simpson: May I finish the point?
	Europe is discussing producer liability legislation. People are already saying, It is an interesting idea, but why don't we leave it and see where the European roundabout takes us? The reality is simple. The biotech corporations have been working hand in glove with European Commissioners, saying, We do not want any liability regime that would make us legally responsible for the damage that we do, so spin it round for the decade and then come out with a policy that is anodyne and useless. If we sign up to the measure, we will sign away any ability to say, No. It is an inadequate resolution of a real environmental threat and the ducking of a legitimate environmental liability.

William Cash: There is a lot of talk about product liability, directives and so forth in the European Union. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. He had not got on to the producer liability directive when I tried to intervene. That is the problem. Everything is being subsumed.

Alan Simpson: Fundamentally, it comes down to the right of the British public to decide. They may feel that there is a greater good to be had in going down the path along which the Nice treaty takes us one step further. I doubt it. After an informed debate, we would not wish to sign up to that model of an inclusive European future. There are better models. It is just that we have not had the right to address them. We face a fundamental test of our long-term credibility. If we deny the public the right to a say, it takes us one step closer to defining ourselves as of no relevance to the big issues that confront their lives. That is why I do not welcome the measure.
	Whatever disagreements we have on policy issues, there is an imperfect virtue about the nature of parliamentary democracy. It gives the public and parties the right to change course, to change positions and to be changed. If we surrender that, we have to accept responsibility for increasing numbers of the public saying that, as an institution, we have less and less relevance in determining the issues that affect their lives, and they will look elsewhere.
	There is a danger that the European project has already become hijacked. Ten thousand corporate lobbyists permanently besiege Brussels to ensure that their policies are the ones that become EU directives. There is an agenda there. The priorities of corporate Europe are directly at odds with the long-term interests of civic Europe. If we do not deliver on-going democratic accountability, the danger is that we will prepare the ground for citizens legitimately to conclude that parliamentary democracy has become a farce or a facade, and that change will have to come through a direct challenge by citizens to corporate greed. There is huge instability in any country's going down that path. If we do not make a stand to defend the rights of citizens to decide, they will decide to do so themselves in other ways.

William Cash: I would like, as it were, to begin at the end of the debate, by taking up the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). He invited us to withdraw our new clauses and to allow him to go ahead with his. They are substantively the samethere is no real difference between the three new clausesbut I asked him whether he had any tangible evidence that that would deliver the type of result that I would, obviously, want. I believe passionately that we should have a referendum on this treaty, as we should on the whole treaty on European Union. Another new clause that I tabled to that effect was not selected, but that was because it was outside the scope of the Bill, not because it did not have any intrinsic merit.
	I am not inviting the right hon. Gentleman to give the same answer as before. I merely point out that no useful purpose would be served if the position that some of us have consistently adopted in principle over a long timethat matters that come within the ambit of the treaties should be referred to a referendumwere adopted by a relatively small number of rebels on the Government Benches. In the heady days of Maastricht, the dividing line was narrow enough for us to be able to press matters to some effect. Therefore, although I will be guided by the Front-Bench team, I do not see any reason why we should not press the matter to a Division on our own account.
	I welcome the speech made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and the thoughtful speech made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I do not agree with all his arguments, but I agree emphatically with the underlying idea of the necessity, in principle, to obtain the consent of the electorates. This treaty, like the consolidated treaty on the European Union, is of increasing and vast importance for the daily lives of our constituents.
	I have said repeatedly that every time we deal with a line in the treaty, if we implement it in our domestic law we are doing the equivalent of what would otherwise require a Bill which could take as long as six months to consider. We are conducting a monumental exercise.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South talked about Poland. In my travels with the Select Committee I have been all over central and eastern Europe. I have noticed over the past few years that since negotiations for accession began, those countries have been required to change and consolidate virtually every page of their statute books so that they become consistent with the acquis communautaire. That is the blackmail deal being conducted.
	I know from my discussions with Members of Parliament and members of the public in those countries that they are deeply disturbed by the extent to which their elite have driven the legislation through their respective Parliaments. Charts supplied to me through the European Scrutiny Committee and given to me by the prospective member states show that they have complied with certain chapters of the acquis communautaire. It has been a relentless process of attrition. However, the key point is that there has been no consent from the people. Slice by slice, they have had their intrinsic democracy taken away by negotiations conducted on their behalf by their elite. As far as I can make out, that has taken place without any reference to the people or any information about what is going on.
	On Second Reading, I referred to the impact that I thought that would have on the springtime of nations, which we may remember from 1988-89. At that time we were all elated by the way in which, with great courage, those countries disentangled themselves from the Soviet Union. We were all exhilarated by those events. However, I fear for those countries, as I do for the United Kingdom, in respect of our democratic principles and the forum of the House of Commons. For the reasons that I have given in the many debates on the Nice treaty in which I have participated, I believe that this House is being reduced day by daynot only by the attitude of the Prime Minister and the Government Whips but by a whole series of forces, including those which require Select Committees to be nominated by the Whips, and the refusal to accept the Liaison Committee report. That is all part of a process, and that is why I am a vigorous and enthusiastic member of the Parliament First group.
	On the day we returned after the election I saw the draft of the Parliament First group motion. I said that if I were the Prime Minister, in the aftermath of a landslide victory, what would worry me most would be the fact that hon. Members from both sides of the Housemany of them highly respectedwere combining to put Parliament back in its proper place. In order to achieve that, given the encroachment of legislation such as this, which is about European government and emanates from the treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Maastricht, it has become increasingly necessary for parliamentarians to take a stand.
	This will be a test for the Leader of the House, to see whether he can deliver anything meaningful. I spoke to him recently, and during an exchange in a debate, he said that he would be prepared to meet some of us to discuss the implications of the need to increase the power of Back Benchers. When we make a stand of that kind, we are standing up for the voters of this country, which is what it is all about. The bottom line on all these European questions is democracy and accountability.
	I wrote a pamphlet a few months ago entitled Associated but not absorbed. It calls for an associated European area, which would mean that if the current member states were not prepared to listen to the arguments for renegotiation of the treaties, the associated countries could gather together and form their own treaty. That would effectively outflank the process of so-called irreversible integration. As with the great battles of the 19th century, such as those over the corn laws and the Reform Act of 1867as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South seemed to suggest if I read his mind correctlyreversibility can be achieved only by people making it clear that when there is no response in their interest from Governments or elites, it is up to them to ensure that their freedom and democracy is preserved. Only time will tell what the exact mechanism for doing that will be. That process is dangerous. There is a disconnection.
	I have heard for very many years about the democratic deficit. However, the continuing process of integration has been accompanied by a refusal to do anything about that democratic deficit, which everyone acknowledges exists. Although the riots in Gothenburg, for example, certainly did not relate exclusively to the Nice treaty, they did occur at a European Union summit and were symbolic of people's determination to have their views heard. I deeply regret the fact that anarchists and others have become involved in all those processes, and I believe profoundly that it is essential that protest should be peaceful, but I also say that Governments create such circumstances, by carrying on as if voters were unimportant or did not matter at all.
	A short time ago, as hon. Members may recall, I said that a fateful decision was taken when the Danish referendum was disgracefully rejected by the Danish Government, and John Major's Government agreed to allow another referendum to be held. I strongly objected in the House to that decision. The following week or so, the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung published an editorial saying that elections are becoming a form of protest, and that that is very dangerous and must be stopped. Such language shows an attitude of mind that is not only extremely dangerous but has continued ever since.
	Those who hold such views do not seem to have discovered that sooner or later, people refuse to put up with those views. They rely greatly on the fact that people do not know what is going on. Does anyone have the foggiest idea of the implications of enhanced co-operation? If so, I defy them to explain them to me.
	Yesterday we had a debate on the formulae, philosophy and provisions of enhanced co-operation. Hon. Members can judge for themselves the outcome of that discussion, much of which was between the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) and me. We discussed the range and depth of enhanced co-operation, the manner in which it is creating gravitational pull, the way in which it is moving towards direct taxation and the fact that it is centred on eight member states, regardless of the Union's enlargement to 27. We also discussed many other matters, although I shall not repeat them as they are set out in the report of that debate. However, I defy anyone who has not become a serious political analystor, I am sorry to say, a lawyerto explain the precise consequences of enhanced co-operation. It has a vast impact.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) implied that he thought that the treaty was unimportant in many respects, by saying that he could not see any constitutional implications in it. He therefore questioned our tabling a new clause providing for a referendum. As I know him to be a man of great distinction and perception, I am astonished that he could not see the constitutional implications of enhanced co-operation. Moreover, enhanced co-operation is only one of the treaty's provisions.
	Given the small number of hon. Members attending this debatethere are only two Conservative Back Benchers in the Chamber

Teddy Taylor: Two very good ones.

William Cash: I shall leave my hon. Friend to say that; I make no claims for myself.
	I am trying my best to put the facts on the record, and to some extent I have succeeded. However, no information is going from this House to the public on the subject of enhanced co-operation.
	The communication between ourselves and the public depends on the media. I am grateful that some of my comments on defence matters were referred to in the national press this morning, but some columnist, commentator or worthy journalist should be prepared to reduce the complexity of these matters by writing an article for one of the great national newspapers to enable more people to understand what is going on.
	We are individual Back Benchers, but journalists have access, through the prints, to up to 3 million people and can warn them of what the treaty contains. The same applies to radio and television. During the debate on the Queen's Speech, I spoke about constitutional implications, including the reform of Parliament. In that speech I referred to the BBC and the broadcasting authorities generally, and suggested that their research departments and commentators might take an interest in the treaty. Perhaps I am a wishful thinker, because I will be surprised if there is any reference to this debate on the radio or television. I hope that I am wrong, and I will continue to try my best.
	As for the Irish and Danish referendums, the Irish people were presented, through their referendum commission, with a paper that was delivered to every household, summarising in simple language the implications of the Nice treaty. I will not be told by anybody, no matter how self-important they may seem, that the Irish people did not know what they were doing. They received information and formed the judgment on which their decision was taken.
	There were other issues, such as the McCreevy speechthere were also problems involving Mr. McDowallaround the time of the referendum. But there is no doubt that the Irish people made their decision, by a substantial majority, in the light of information made available to them. It is irresponsible for anyone to suggest that they did not know what they were doing.

Wayne David: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the turnout in the referendum was only 35 per cent.?

William Cash: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will remember the degree of cynicism and apathy generated by the continual driving through of this process by the elite, which was reflected, for example, in our turnout for the European elections of no more than 23 per cent. The failureby Europe's elites, establishments and Governmentsto inform people properly has led to much of the apathy and cynicism that exists, so I do not take the hon. Gentleman's point very seriously.
	I campaigned in the Danish referendum, and I appeared on platforms with French leaders during France's Maastricht treaty referendum. I did so because the matters under discussion, as they applied in those countries, affected Britain. Decisions reached by majority vote in the Council of Ministers, or by Governments at intergovernmental conferences, are part of the constant movement towards political union. They have an impact on us because laws are transferred to this country by section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.
	Britain therefore has an intrinsic interest in what is going on in other countries, and it is essential for us to take an active interest in referendums held elsewhere. However, we must do so with a degree of circumspection, depending on the country involved and whether its Government want us to participate in the referendum process.

Wayne David: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He did not attach much significance to my earlier intervention, but I hope that he will to this one. Does he accept that Denmark is not having a referendum on the Nice treaty because it does not consider it sufficiently significant?

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman clearly anticipates a riposte from me, and he shall have it: Denmark is not holding a referendum on the Nice treaty because the Danish Government are frightened that they might lose. That is borne out by the history of referendums in that countrya history that I know well.
	The Danish people voted no in the first referendum, and then were badly let down by the British Government and others. Another referendum was held, and during that campaign companies blackmailed people by threatening to close factories. People voted yes in the second referendum, but deeply regretted it. I remember being in a caf in Copenhagen, and a young woman sitting with her boyfriend next to me started to cry. When I asked her why, she told me that she had voted in favour of the proposal set out in the referendum, and now wished that she had not. People were frightened. The next referendum in Denmark was on the euro, and they voted against it. I therefore base my answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) on facts, not conjecture or speculation.
	Referendums should obtain the consent of a country's peoplein deciding, for example, who should govern them, and how. They should not be used indiscriminately, but they are appropriate when vast tranches of power are being engineered by the elite. That is what is happening with the Nice treaty, for which no referendum is planned.
	The Government stand accused of refusing to give the British people the right to have their say on the Nice treaty. The same thing happened with the Amsterdam treaty, in connection with which I tabled an amendment similar to new clause 37.
	Moreover, I organised and ran the Maastricht referendum campaign. I am glad to say that I was supported by Bryan Gould, a member of the Labour party, and by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), from the Liberal Democrat party. They were my joint chairmen. We ran the campaign together, and obtained 500,000 signatures to the demand for a referendum from our own Government.
	On 11 June 1996 I introduced the Referendum Bill. I was hauled into the Chief Whip's office and given a roasting, which made no impact on me whatever, for daring to introduce a Bill that was supported by no fewer than 95 right hon. and hon. Members, about 98 per cent. of whom were from my party. I pay tribute to several Labour Members, too, and I remember from the Division list that the distinguished and right hon. Member for Llanelli supported the proposal.
	I gave my reasons for objecting to our not having a referendum. I do not think it necessary to go into the speech that I made on that occasion, because it dealt with matters that are now history. However, the rather pathetic attempts to haul me over the coals for daring to bring forward that Billan action that has proved entirely justified, in the light of further moves towards greater integration, which I predicted at the timemake me think that at least I did the right thing for the right reason.

Mike Gapes: How does the hon. Gentleman expect the conversation to go when the Chief Whip in a future Conservative party led by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) wishes to discuss the same matters with him? I would be interested to know whether he has any thoughts about that.

Michael Lord: That may be a most interesting question, but I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman did not pursue it.

William Cash: I will take that up one day with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), as I did with the former Conservative Prime Minister, John Major.
	In introducing the Referendum Bill I said:
	A federal Europe involves surrendering the levers of national democratic government to central unelected officials and a remote and unrepresentative European Parliament . . . A proper referendum is required of those who will be most affectedthe voters themselves. The judgment of the people is now required.[Official Report, 11 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 118-119.]
	I said it then and I say it again now. As far as I am concerned, Members who vote for the new clause will be doing the right thing by the people of this country, for the right reason. I just wish that the information in these debates would be made available to the people at large.

John McDonnell: I wish to speak in support of new clause 44 but will vote for new clause 12.
	It is important that Labour members preface our remarks on Europe so that people are aware that we are not xenophobic little Englanders. In fact, from the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of us have pursued a policy of a united socialist Europe. I do not suppose that there will be many Institute for Public Policy Research booklets or research pamphlets on that for the time being. During that debate, we learned that if we were to build a socialist Europea Europe in the interests of working peoplewe would need to take people with us, fully engage them all the way through the process and secure their support step by step.
	That is why the Irish referendum is a lesson for us. I have some anxieties about how it has been depicted. I know that a number of issues were brought to the fore in that referendum, but there is an element of patronising racism in some of the comments that have been made about that debate. I hope that we can call a halt to that.
	The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) entered into a wonderful alliteration around the Irish debatesurprise in Sligo and so on. To follow that theme, there were doubts in Dublin and worries in Waterford and there was downright chagrin along the Shannon. The Irish people came to a clear view about the overall European project, not necessarily about the treaty of Nice.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the general election was a referendum on the treaty of Nice. There was certainly a commentary about Europe throughout the election, but the detail of the treaty was not a key issue in the pubs and clubs of my constituency, although it may have been in his. He also argued that people were not demonstrating against the treaty, but that does not mean that there is tacit support for it either. There are no people marching in the streets in favour of it.
	The key questionone to which I do not yet have the answeris what triggers a referendum in a country with no written constitution. There was no referendum on Maastricht or Amsterdam, and we do not propose one on Nice. Yet for other political decisions it is almost as if we have taken a referendum diuretic. We have had referendums not only on Wales and Scotland but on a mayor for London. We are promised referendums on regional assemblies. We demand referendums on the reform of councilswhether there should be a mayor and cabinet, a leader and cabinet or a leader and chief executive. A referendum has been called for on parish councils. There was a referendum on the Good Friday agreement. A range of referendums has been established, but not on this issue.
	I understand why people say that the criteria for referendums are whether something is reversible or amendable, but without a written constitution, the main criterion has been that a debate has taken place in the House on a matter on which there is a certain level of political sensitivity so that the political will exists to consult the people. Often, to be frank, that has been politicians wanting to consult the people, hear what they want and confirm their prejudices.
	The political sensitivity about the treaty of Nice is that although it contains some significant elementsmy hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) made the most eloquent and detailed speech about the implications of the treatypeople from all parties are concerned that we are embarked on creeping, incremental constitutional change, treaty by treaty. At some stage, we have to confront the need to put the creeping centralisation of the EU to the people. My hon. Friend pointed out some of the key issues in the treaty, and other key issues will arise in subsequent discussions. They are about choice. The treaty of Nice and enlargement raise questions about how those policies will be paid for and what policies the EU will pursue to ensure a balance between centralisation and diversity as the new countries enter the EU.
	There should be an open debate about whether we are going for a centralised state or some form of confederacy. At some stage, we have to draw the line. I know that the argument is put before us that, with the intergovernmental conference coming up in 2004, we need to encourage a debate. I agree with that, but we have not said that we will hold a referendum on the future of Europe either before or after the IGC.
	At this stage, it would give some of us, and many of those whom we seek to represent, comfort if we made a very explicit statement that we will have a debate on the future of Europe and that, if we do not have a referendum on the treaty of Nice, there will be a referendum on Europe. Some argue that the euro is just a financial matter that does not involve constitutional change, but I disagree: it is about the overall future direction of Europe.
	One view is that, with the treaty of Nice, we are going one step further towards undermining representative democracy. We used to talk about the military-industrial complex; we now talk about the corporate-bureaucratic complex of the EU. We should open up such a debate, and as we approach the 2004 IGC, we should at least assure people that, after a full and thorough debate, a referendum will take place on the future structure of Europe. That involves not only the euro, but the EU's political direction, its funding, the taxation base, the mechanisms for taxation and, above all, the mechanisms of political and representative democracy.

Teddy Taylor: I hope that this will not be regarded as offensive, but I want to tell the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and his two colleagues that I have a huge regard for what they are doing. They know very well the problems they will have in supporting democracy and referendums, probably against their party's wishes. They will be faced with all kinds of problems. They will get no credit from anyone, and hardly anyone will pat them on the back because, by and large, the general public have not a clue what the treaty of Nice is. They know that what they are doing is absolutely right. Many hon. Members presented with such a choice would simply not bother to do anything because they would have all kinds of troubles if they did. They would not get on to Select Committees or get promoted, and they would probably be undermined in their constituencies.
	It is easy to keep quiet and do nothing, and the majority of people take that view, but the right hon. Gentleman and his two colleagues are not going that way; they know that it is vital to stand firm. As someone who has been in trouble and who knows how important the issues are, I have a high regard for them. When the time comes and they face their maker or look back on history, they will know that they have done the right thing for the right reasons. In all sincerity, I have the highest regard for them.
	What about a referendum? Opposition parties usually like referendums, but Governments do not, unless they think that they will win them. Basically, there should be a referendum if the power entrusted to us by the people might be given away irreversibly. We as an institution should manage that power and look after it. If people entrust us with money, power or anything else and we decide to give it away irreversibly so that it can never come back, they should be entitled to a referendum. I wish that both the main parties could reach an agreement so that if we might irreversibly hand away the power entrusted to us by the people, the people would be given the right to say yes or no. That should apply throughout the whole EU, but of course it does not.
	Although some hon. Members may laugh, as they always do in European debates, they should accept the simple point that with every European treaty that we have passed, including the treaty of Rome and the Single European ActI have voted against them allthe Government have said that it was different, that it represented a step forward and that it was good. Those then on the Conservative Front Bench told me time and again that the Single European Act did not involve handing over power to majority voting, that it was simply intended to encourage free trade, that it would help Britain and our industries and jobs and that I was trying to frustrate such help. It was obvious from the treaty that, in fact, it would involve handing over masses of democratic power, but we were told not to worry. The general public were not worried at all and, of course, they were blatantly misled.
	At the time of Maastricht, our Liberal Democrat friends, and others who are always great enthusiasts for Europe, told us that there was nothing to worry about and that everything was okay. They told me that the treaty had positive aspects that would benefit everyone. People were blatantly misled. The same is happening with the treaty of Nicewe are being told that it is nothing to worry about.
	As Labour Members know, receiving one of those ridiculous objective 2 grants is rather like winning the cup final. A colleague spoke about them in the Adjournment debate last night. Some colleagues will probably know that, for reasons that I do not understand, my constituency is the only one in the whole of Essex to get objective 2 money. We applied for grants for only three out of our six wards, but it was decided that five wards should receive funds, so we got more than we asked for. Vast sums will pour into the constituency, and everyone is very happy. When I look around at the unusual projects that such grants are spent on, however, I wonder whether they are a good thing. People in other constituencies are upset and think that the decisions are unfair because there are European rules on unemployment, and my constituency does not have a terribly high unemployment rate. My constituents and those of many Labour Members think that objective 2 is wonderful because money is pouring in to be spent on exciting projects. Our high street will get new lamp posts and trees, which is fantastic.
	Hon. Members should ask themselves what will happen to all those grants when, under the Nice treaty, the membership of the EU is extended. How many Labour Members' constituencies are receiving objective 1 or 2 funding? The plain fact is that in 2006 we will start over, and I believe that there will be hardly any objective 1 or 2 funding for the United Kingdom because, inevitably, all that money will go to eastern Europe. I challenge the Government to prove me wrong.
	I turn now to the ridiculous common agricultural policy, which everyone knows is the biggest protection racket ever devised. It wastes a vast amount of money. Farmers thought that it was wonderful at first because they got higher prices and guarantees. In the same way, fishermen thought that the EU was wonderful until everything went wrong. What on earth will happen to the CAP when we extend EU membership? Romania and Poland have the potential to grow enough food for the whole of Europe. At present, we spend most of the money from the policy on dumping or destroying food. It will be a nightmare when EU membership is extended, and eastern Europe is covered by the CAP. The Government have said, as did the previous Government, that there can be no extension of membership unless there is fundamental reform of the CAP, but that reform has not happenedindeed, it cannot happenas hon. Members are well aware.
	GM foods have been mentioned. We can do something about that problem. If, for example, children in my constituency grow two heads and we can conclusively prove that GM foods are to blame, we can impose certain restrictions on them for three months subject to the approval of the European Commission. However, the basic freedom that we had has gone.
	I could go on for a long time because there are 17 other matters that I could mention, but my basic point is that the treaty of Nice is very significant. Like all the previous treaties, it represents a massive surrender of power. It means that 90 per cent. of the decisions in the European Union will be taken by majority vote. If we are worried about immigration controls and asylum seekers, we must consider what will happen when the restrictions are removed and eastern Europe is included in the European Union.
	It may be that all that is for the benefit of mankind, but the people should be told about the treaty. Every time there is a treaty, we are told not to worry because it is not as bad as the last one, and represents a step forward. We must remember that when we hand over the people's power and things go wrong, the people get nasty. They are not worried now because, by and large, they do not have a clue what is in the treaty. When they ask about it they are told not to worry, and only a few people will tell them that it is bad. When democracy goes wrong and people feel that they have been betrayed and sold out, everyone will have a nasty time.
	That is why it is right to let the people decide. At least then, if it goes wrong, we can say, You voted for it. Of course, we might have to say, You didn't bother to vote for itonly 50 per cent. of you bothered to vote. However, we should at least give them the chance to vote. We must remember that the power is not ours; it belongs to the people, and we are meant to be managing it. If we hand over that power without giving them the chance to decide, we are not only cheating but undermining the whole principle of democracy.
	That is why I hope that hon. Members will vote tonight for a referendum. I presume that not many of them will, but if we do not, we will be making a terrible mistake. I say again in all sincerity that I know that Labour Members who vote for a referendum will be doing something unpopular that will get them into trouble, but they will be doing the right thing. True democrats will some day cheer them and say that they were right.

Meg Munn: I shall be brief, as other hon. Members want to speak.
	As the Committee knows, I am a new Member. I received a telephone call yesterday to ask whether I would write a short article for The House magazine about my first impressions. I have many first impressions, but those that are relevant to the debate concern scrutiny. In various debates over the past 10 days, we have heard much about the importance of Members of Parliament scrutinising legislation and holding the Government to account. I take the matter seriously, and I believe that the people of Sheffield, Heeley elected me to do that job.
	However, with regard to some of the new clauses before us, I find it difficult to take seriously the contention that the Opposition are interested in scrutiny and in holding the Government to account. New clause 37 has the names of six hon. Members against it. New clause 12 has the names of four hon. Members against it. I cannot count 10 Members of the official Opposition in the Chamber.
	I also find it difficult to take seriously the calls for a referendum. As has been said, the Conservatives do not have a history of holding referendums on such matters. Why now? We have heard various explanations. We have heard that it is time for the people to have their say, that we should respect the views of the British people, that remorseless political integration is under way and that powers should be returned to Parliament. Opposition Members seem to be saying that they do not want to be in the European Union. If that is what they believe, they should say so. In their current search for a leader, that will cause them some difficulties. People should be honest about what they want and clear about what they are saying.
	My constituents receive objective 1 funding, and I do not share the fears of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). We are not proud to live in an area that is among the poorest in Europe. We are extremely concerned about that. I hope that objective 1 money will do what it is intended to dohelp to lift the people of my constituency and the surrounding area out of that situation, so that when the money comes to an end, as it is programmed to do, we will not feel the loss.

Teddy Taylor: To resolve the question, why does not the hon. Lady ask the Minister, an able, conscientious and talented person with lots of officials to back him up, a simple question: what happens to Britain's share of objective 2 and objective 1 in the event of Europe expanding to include eastern Europe? There are three possibilities: the money will be cut, it will be increased or it will stay the same. Why not ask the Minister and see what he says?

Meg Munn: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard those comments and that there is no need for me to waste time repeating them. If he wishes to deal with the hon. Gentleman's point in his winding-up speech, I am sure that he will do so. As I was saying, I hope that my constituents will not need such assistance in several years' time.
	Why do the Opposition propose a referendum on the Nice treaty when they are so reluctant to support a referendum on the euro? That reluctance has been made very clear. Some hon. Members suggested that the general election constituted a referendum on keeping the pound. If that is the case, the decision has been taken and the matter is over, although I am sure that that is not exactly what the people believe.
	I believe that the treaty will make significant improvements and help enlargement. Constituents of mine who raised the issue during the general election campaign were supportive of enlargement and wanted us to move ahead, but many people do not understand the detail of the treaty. That is for us to talk about and explain, but I support the Government's position, which is that a referendum is unnecessary on this matter.

Stephen Ladyman: Very little time remains, so I shall keep my remarks brief and hope that hon. Members will forgive me if my contribution does not include some of the usual pleasantries. Three very thoughtful speeches were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and I hope to deal at least in part with some of the issues that they raised.
	Whenever we enter into a treaty, the minimum consequence is that we reduce our national room to manoeuvre, but sometimes we go further and limit our sovereignty. Whether we share or pool it, it will be limited in some way. However, we do not automatically have a referendum whenever that happens because we have a parliamentary system of democracy and take such decisions here in this place. We are the ultimate deciders of such matters. If we get those decisions wrong, we expect to answer for them in an election.
	There is a precedent for holding referendums on issues of national importance when certain criteria are met. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, we have no written constitution, which means that we have no rule book and can only try to judge the nature of that precedent. In my view, for a referendum on a treaty to be appropriate, that treaty should involve a quantum leap in our constitutional position, cross party lines to the extent that we cannot resolve the matter clearly in a general election, and involve a complicated issue that is difficult to deal with and will become submerged in a general election campaign.
	If those are the tests of whether a referendum is necessary, the treaty of Nice does not fulfil them. It does not constitute a quantum leap in our constitutional position. As the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) said, matters of tax and defence are still to be decided by unanimity. The treaty does not deal with what would usually be called significant losses of sovereignty.
	Although attitudes to the treaty cross party lines, certain parties offered clear choices in the general election. One party proposed a referendum on the treaty, but it was rejected. Another argued that we should leave the Union altogether, but it, too, was rejected. Thus the criterion that I described in relation to party lines has not been met.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South added another set of criteria. He said that a referendum should be held on a measure that is unamendable and irreversible, but I respectfully suggest to him that he did not make such a case in respect of the treaty of Nice. He also argued that the treaty of Nice would have consequences which were sufficiently significant to justify holding a referendum on it. Of course it has consequences, but they are reversible and amendable. We could renegotiate them at the next intergovernmental conference. My hon. Friend did not make a clear case for the consequences being irreversible.
	If consequences are the deciding factor in whether to hold a referendum, we must bear it in mind that all our actions have consequences. My constituents often ask me whether I would vote to reintroduce the death penalty. I tell them that if they want someone to do that, they must elect a different person. In the past two elections, they have chosen not to do that. Yet opinion polls tell me that my constituents would like the death penalty to be reintroduced. If they want that, they can vote for someone else, because I shall not support its reintroduction. My decision has consequences, but we do not hold a referendum on the subject; the decision is left to me.
	I agree that the Nice treaty has consequences. I believe that they are beneficial; some of my hon. Friends would argue that they are detrimental. However, that is an argument not for a referendum but for voting for or against the treaty in Parliament.

Frank Field: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in 1975, on the only occasion when we held a referendum, none of his criteria were fulfilled? We held it so that a divisive issue could be settled in the country.

Stephen Ladyman: I agree that that was a factor in deciding to hold a referendum, but I disagree that my criteria were not fulfilled.
	Consequences are an insufficient reason for a referendum. If we hold referendums simply because decisions are difficult, we undermine parliamentary democracy. It is strange that Conservative Members, who usually lecture us about the importance of Parliament and the need to ensure that it is supreme again, argue for putting aside our supremacy because they do not like a decision and want a referendum on it.

Peter Hain: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I am sorry that my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and for Preston (Mr. Hendrick) were unable to get in, not least because of the long speech of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). However, I shall not make much of that.
	The debate was of high quality and some fundamental issues were raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead made some important points. One was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet when he talked about surrendering sovereignty. Membership of the European Union does not mean surrendering sovereignty, which we have kept. We have retained the veto where it matters: for example, over taxation, social security and defence.
	As my hon. Friend said, we are considering pooling sovereignty. How else can we combat the drugs menace, human trafficking and the environmental catastrophe that faces the world, especially Europe? How else can we tackle the problems of globalisation, and negotiate with the World Trade Organisation and other bodies, unless we do that from a common position of strength?
	We pool our sovereignty, or surrender it, through membership of the United Nations Security Council. We thus give up our ability to do as we like about foreign policy. We pool our sovereignty through our membership of NATO. We thus give up our right to do as we like to defend our country. However, we gain in strength and influence by pooling sovereignty.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that he believed that enlargement could proceed without the Nice treaty. I suppose that that is theoretically possible. [Hon. Members:  Ah!] Wait for it! We have had this argument before. It would be theoretically possible if all 12 states had exhaustive individual accession treaties, but frankly, that is not feasible. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will accept that it is not a serious proposition to construct a new Europe on that basis.
	One of the most powerful points that my right hon. Friend made was about the gap between the leaders and the led in Europe, although I am not sure that a referendum is the logical solution. This is a serious problem. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) was kind enough to address it, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South. I made a speech on the subject yesterday, which is available on the Foreign Office websitewww.fco.gov.ukin its full glory, as opposed to the summary that appeared in The Independent.
	A serious problem faces the European Union in terms of the language that is usedthe Eurospeak and Eurobabbleand the sense of an elite body talking to itself, meeting behind security cordons and barriers, having been ferried there by limousines. This is a serious issue that we need to address, and Britain is determined to ensure that it is addressed. However, we will not address it by holding a referendum.
	If we are seeking to bring the leaders and the led closer together in the European Union, we should do it by constructing a different approach to communications, to policy and to the institutional relationship between the leadership of Europe and its citizens. Similarly, we would not deal with the low electoral turnout in Britain, which is an increasing problem, by holding a referendum on it, because that would not be a sensible way to proceed.

Angus Robertson: The Minister talks about the gap between the leaders and the led. Everyone recognises that a lot of valuable work goes on in the European Parliament. One issue that I have not heard mentioned is the knock-on effect of the reduction in the number of MEPs for the United Kingdom. I asked the Library today whether the Government had at any time clarified what number of MEPs will represent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, post ratification. There has been no such clarification from the Government. I know that that is a matter of great concern for Northern Irish colleagues, as well as those in Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister clarify how many MEPs Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have after the ratification of the Nice treaty?

Peter Hain: That matter has still to be addressed. I am being absolutely frank with the hon. Gentleman when I tell him that the reduction from, I think, 87 to 72 MEPs is a long way into the future. We cannot have enlargement on a sensible basis without addressing that matter. I see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding in agreement.
	There is a further serious problem that cannot be solved by a referendum. In the Irish referendum, the slogan seemed to be, If you don't know, vote no. Account needs to be taken of that. The gap between the institutions of Europe and the people of Europe is an issue that must be confronted and resolved.
	The argument by the Conservative party that the Nice treaty is so important, and makes so many changes of constitutional significance, that we must hold a referendum on it before we ratify it, seems absolutely wrong. In the majority of member states, the traditional constitutional process for ratifying EU treaties is by parliamentary procedure, just as it is in Britain, just as it was for our own accession treaty when we joined, just as it was for the Amsterdam treaty, and, significantly, just as it was for the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. Both those measures introduced far more fundamental changes than Nice does, and both were negotiated by the Conservative party, which saw no need to trouble the people with a referendum on either.
	It is worth taking a look at some of the constitutional issues in the Maastricht treaty, which the Conservatives agreed. Maastricht established the European Union; it established citizenship of the Union; and it set up the pillar structure, with common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs joining the European Community. It extended qualified majority voting to 30 substantial new articles. The iron lady might not have been for turning, but today's Conservative party appears to be spinning like a top.
	What was the Conservative party's argument for the sudden change of heart? The right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) told John Humphrys that it had not held a referendum on Maastricht because
	at that time there was not the custom of holding referendums.
	That is not a serious argument and I am surprised that he even tried it with John Humphrys. The right hon. Gentleman has also complained that the Government held referendums on all manner of what he implied were trivial issues, such as Scottish and Welsh devolution and the system of government for London. That is the attitude that won the Conservative party precisely no seats in Wales or Scotland in 1997 and caused it to fare little better a few weeks ago.
	Those were very important constitutional issues. So too is whether we join the euro, but on thatarguably the defining issue of our generationthe Conservatives would also deny the people the chance to voice their opinion, although they would have a referendum on apparently vital issues in the treaty of Nice, such as whether to extend QMV for the pension arrangements of the registrar of the Court of First Instance, encouraging the EU's institutions to reply to letters from members of the public in a reasonable time frame, and changing the name of the Official Journal of the EC to the Official Journal of the EU, which of course would do nothing more than reflect reality.
	The Conservatives have put themselves in an incredible positionopposition for opposition's sake. They oppose a referendum on an important constitutional issue such as the euro, but want to break with established constitutional procedure and hold one on the treaty. However, the hon. Member for West Suffolk has made his case just in time and I congratulate him on that. What has the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the front-runner in the Conservative leadership election, to say about a referendum on the Nice treaty? He is opposed to one, saying:
	Our official policy at the general election was that the Conservatives favoured enlarging the union but opposed the treaty of Nice which paves the way for enlargement . . . We opposed the extension of qualified majority voting to any new subject, however trivial . . . These policies are difficult to reconcile with Britain's continued membership of the EU . . . When I am leader, these will not be the official policies of the party.
	The old agenda, which will disappear in a few weeks, has been put from the Opposition Front Bench tonight.
	Notwithstanding the thoughtful comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who made serious points that need to be taken on board, we must keep our eye on the ball. The Nice treaty is about a huge prizereuniting Europe and healing the divisions of the second world war and the cold war. It must be endorsed as speedily as possible and ratified, as we intend to do through Parliament, to achieve European unity and to bring prosperity, stability, peace and security to all the other nations that want to join us in the EU.
	Those countries are desperate to join, as I discovered when I spoke recently to the Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, Jan Kavan, with whom I worked in the 1970s and 1980s in the anti-apartheid movement here in Britain. He wants to join the EU and we should not stand in his waynor in that of our many other friends, such as Cyprus, Malta and Poland. I urge the Committee to reject the new clause, endorse the proposition put by the Government and ensure that the treaty of Nice is ratified.

Richard Spring: From the time when the Minister was active in the Young Liberals in his youth, he will remember a song called Let The Sun Shine In. That is exactly what we have attempted with the murky areas of the Nice treaty. This is complicated legislation and the Government have covered themselves in confusion. As we have heard consistently, they did not think out the implications of what they signed up to, and that has been transparently obvious during three days of Committee debate.
	The Minister talked about Eurobabble, and for all his honeyed words, Eurobabble is what we have heard from him. There is a terrible danger that the elites of the European Union will acquire an echo of Marie Antoinette. The truth of the matter is that if we go on disconnecting the people of Europe from the institutions of the European Union, it will not survive and prosper.
	This is an opportunity to re-engage the people of Britain with the process in the European Union by offering them a referendum. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has not given even one constructive reason why there should not be a referendum. I have listened carefully to his hon. Friends, and agree substantially with what they have said.
	We want to breathe the fresh air of democracy into this process. Unhesitatingly, we will press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
	The Committee divided: Ayes 129, Noes 377.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 38
	  
	Effects of Nice Treaty

'Within three months of the ratification by Her Majesty's Government of the Treaty of Nice amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community, the Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the economic, political and constitutional developments arising therefrom.'.[Mr. Cash.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

William Cash: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	We have been through something of a marathon and we are now coming towards the end of our consideration of the new clauses. We have an opportunity to look at the implications of what we have been discussing over the past few days. My clause would provide an opportunity for the people of this country to be properly informed about what will be achieved after ratification of the Nice treaty. It states that within three months of the treaty's ratification
	the Government shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a White Paper on the economic, political and constitutional developments arising therefrom.
	Tomorrow, or shortly afterwards, the European Commission will produce a White Paper based on a report made to it. It will be a White Paper from Europe. I can give a sample of it. It says that the EU is a laboratory of world governance. We have been witnessing a continual process towards an undemocratic and unaccountable Europe within a legal framework. The Division has denied us a referendum, just as we have been denied a referendum on the treaty of European Union itself. In my opinion, it is time that we had one.
	Over the past year and a half, I have challenged the Prime Minister three times on the Floor of the House to give us a White Paper on the European issuethe constitutional, political and economic implications of what we have been deliberating on over the past few days, or indeed the past few years. Three times the Prime Minister has denied the people of this country the information that would enable them to make a judgment about what is going on. Why? The truth is that the Prime Minister dare not tell the British people what is happening. He knows perfectly well that if he were to provide a White Paper, he would have to spell out all the political and economic implications for the House and for the daily lives of the people of this country.
	It is a denial of the information that is due to the British people. Churchill said that one should tell the truth to the British people because they are a robust people, and if you do not tell them the truth, woe betide you on the morrow. That is what is going on here. That is why we have seen riots in Gothenburg and elsewhere. It is why there was a rejection of the Nice treaty in the Irish referendum and why the referendum in Denmark turned down the proposals for the euro. People are fed up with being governed by an elite. They are not being given the information that they require. My new clause would enable the British people to have proper information about what is being done to them.
	It is a matter of fundamental democracy and, after the Division tonight, the Government will stand accused of not being prepared to provide the people with a White Paper.

Richard Spring: I want to make it plain that we fully support the notion of a White Paper as contained in the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash). It would mean that we could take a long, hard and proper look at what Nice was all about and the implications that flow from it. I remind hon. Members that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs concluded:
	The Treaty of Nice has proved to be much more substantial than the United Kingdom Government and others initially envisaged.
	We know from the Select Committee proceedings how the Government went disorganised and unstructured into the Nice treaty negotiations, and how they came out of them after signing up to the treaty without fully understanding its implications and what it is all about. In those circumstances, a White Paper would be the right way of taking a proper and considered view of what was agreed to at Nice. I am happy to support my hon. Friend's proposal.

Menzies Campbell: In the course of the Committee's consideration of the Bill many comments have been made about the need for clarity and transparency and the need to reconnect the people of the United Kingdom with the European Union. I think that a White Paper of the type that the new clause seeks to persuade the Government to provide would be a very important step in achieving those objectives. For those reasons, but not necessarily for those that have been advanced so far in the debate, I believe that this is a new clause worthy of support.

Peter Hain: Conservative Members have lost the argument in this debate and now they come waving a bit of white paper. It is not necessary to have a White Paper.
	A White Paper on the effect of the Nice treaty, Reform for Enlargement, was published in February 2000 and clearly set out the Government's position on the 2000 intergovernmental conference. Parliament is now debating the implications of Nice, and we shall continue to keep Parliament informed of developments in the European Union as they occur. We have laid before Parliament, and published yesterday, our six-monthly report on developments in the European Union. Additionally, Parliament will have ample opportunity to debate and contribute to the future of Europe in the lead-up to the next intergovernmental conference, in 2004. I look forward to the erudite contributions that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) will make to those debates.
	We believe that the treaty of Nice is a good outcome for Britain and will deliver a stronger Britain in a wider Europe. We have opened the door to enlargement, the fantastic prize of reunifying Europe. We have won more relative voting power for Britain. Conservative Members said that we could not achieve that, but we did. We have also won a more efficient Commission. We have secured more qualified majority voting when that is in Britain's interests, and we have preserved our veto by saying that we needed to do so. We have achieved a more effective system of justice in the European Union that will help to cut delays. We have also secured a more flexible European Union while safeguarding the interests of all member states.
	We shall continue to engage at every opportunity in a discussion on all aspects of the Nice treaty as it evolves with Parliament and with the House of Commonson the Floor of the House, in Committee, and in the Scrutiny Committee. I therefore do not think that a White Paper is necessary, and I do not think that the Opposition are serious about pressing the new clause to a Division.
	Conservative Members have had their last fling today. When they return from the summer recess, they will have a new leader. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) has made it clear that he supports the Nice treaty. How will the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Stone and all the other Conservative Members who have attacked the Nice treaty be voting on Third Reading in October?

John Bercow: Against.

Peter Hain: There we have it. A rebellion is already being planned, three or four months before Third Reading, by some Conservative Back Benchers. They will be voting against Third Reading and defying their new leader, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe. What a pathetic rabble they are.
	As Labour Members, we are lifting our heads above that dreadful spectacle and saying that the real issues are about the unity of Europe, a more efficient Europe, a more prosperous Europe, a Europe that drives forward towards full employment, social justice and the protection of people's job security and rights, and a Europe that fights poverty and combats the environmental threat that is the scourge of our times.
	We commend the Bill and reject new clause 38.

It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Orders [4 and 11 July], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
	The Committee divided: Ayes 181, Noes 334.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Bill reported, without amendment.
	To be read the Third time tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [28 June],
	That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 26th October, 2nd, 23rd and 30th November 2001, 11th, 18th and 25th January, 15th March, 12th and 19th April, 10th May, 21st June and 19th July 2002.[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION
	  
	Asylum Seekers (Everton)

Louise Ellman: I present this petition on behalf of 378 Christians in Anglican and Catholic churches in the north Liverpool deanery who wish to register their concern about poor conditions and the atmosphere of fear and oppression in two tower blocks in Everton, LiverpoolLandmark and Inn on the Parkin which asylum seekers are housed.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons acknowledges the issues faced by the asylum seekers in Everton; that the House urge the Secretary of State for the Home Department to take all measures which lie within his power to improve the safety, peace of mind, and living conditions of these residents; and that the House give its full support to all such measures.
	And the petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table

British Bases (Kenya)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Martin Caton: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of civilian casualties at British military training areas in Kenya. I am particularly pleased to be able to do so before the summer recess, as this is an important matter and one about which I know there is growing public concern throughout the country.
	In introducing this debate, I cannot help but cast my mind back three years to the last Parliament when we passed the Landmines Act 1998, and I can still remember the enormous pride that I felt as a new Back Bencher at the fact that our Government were demonstrating clear moral leadership in the world and making an eloquent statement about the value that they put on human life and well-being not just in our own country but throughout the world.
	I know that during our debates on that Bill, I was not alone among Members of Parliament on both sides of the House in having in mind the heart-rending pictures that we had, seen in our newspapers and on our television screens as the campaign for that legislation developed, of young children killed and terribly maimed by anti-personnel mines . All too often, because terrible and sad conflicts have taken place on the African continent in recent years, those pictures were of African childrenthe innocent victims of current and historic wars in their home countries.
	It was those pictures that came back to me just over a fortnight ago when I listened to a You and Yours radio programme about people in Kenyamostly childrenbeing killed, disabled and injured by unexploded munitions on military training grounds used by the British Army in the central part of that country.
	The Observer of the same weekend carried a full-page article by Kamal Ahmed headed Britain's secret killing fields, which provided its own specific and terrible images both visual and verbal that told the story of individual and family tragedies that resulted from, in most cases, children and young people happening on artillery shells or other ordnance which had failed to explode when initially fired and which had never been collected or cleared.
	Since then, I have done some research and read a lot more personal case studies from people who live in the regions in which the two military training areas on which I wish to focus are set. I found the stories extremely moving, very distressing and quite shaming. I want to put some cases on the record this evening because it is important to keep the real human consequences of our actionsor inactionat the centre of the debate. That can be lost sometimes if we deal only in statistics, history and geography.
	First, to set the scene, I need to explain that the areas that I am talking about in Kenya are Archer's Post, near the Shaba game reserve, predominantly the tribal lands of the Samburu, and Dol Dol, close to the town of Nanyuki, mostly Masai lands in the shadow of Mount Kenya. Both areas have been used by the British Army, but not exclusively, for more than 50 years. I cannot prove that the examples that I shall cite involve the victims of British ordnance, but I will try to show that there is every likelihood that they do. There is every reason to believe that innocent civilians have been killed or crippled by British munitions and that that has happened ever since our Army started to use Kenyan training areas more than 20 years before independence was achieved in 1967.
	I have read of specific cases dating back to 1979for example, that of Lemura Kapisi Ole Kipese, who one afternoon in August that year was grazing his father's livestock when he saw an oval object with a spring attached to the end. When he tried to pick it up, the spring snapped and it dropped to the ground. The next thing he knew, he was in hospital in excruciating pain. He is still disabled. He says, Since the poisonous bits of the explosive lodged in the lower parts of my body, my left leg had to be amputated. Besides, I lost the use of both arms, which were left paralysed.
	In the same year, Swaili Mpopwoki was even unluckier. An object that she picked up and then threw down blew her to smithereens. Her brother described the consequences, Shrapnel lodged in her breast while pieces of metal hit her face making her blind and badly disfigured. She eventually died of her wounds.
	Moving forward 20 years, things do not seem to have changed very much. In September 1999, Peter Mwangi, a 14-year-old, took home what he thought was a metal stone. He hit it with a hammer, but it would not break, so he threw it into a fire and it exploded. He and three siblings were almost killed and one of them lost a leg. A nurse at Wamba hospitalthe local hospital that deals with casualties from Archer's Postdescribed the condition of Mowli Lmolian Lekorian, when he was brought in, saying, He was very badly injured. The scull was almost out; the leg, the abdomen and the eyes also. I shall not go on, but I could; there are many individual and family stories such as those. On average six children a year are killed or maimed by unexploded ordnanceunexploded, that is, until the children find it.
	So who is responsible? Perhaps the first question is whose bombs and shells are doing the damage. The Kenyan, and once or twice, the American, armies have trained in those areas, but all the available evidence suggests that the British Army has been by far the most significant user of those training areas. The United Kingdom sends 3,000 to 3,500 soldiers to Kenya in any one year. Their use of artillery and mortars is now confined predominantly to the flatter areas of the Archer's Post range. That part of the country is home to the Samburu tribe, who are pasturalistsnomadic people moving to wherever there is good grazing. I am informed that around 20,000 of them live in the Archer's Post range area for part of the year.
	Local people are sure that Dol Dol used to be exploited for similar heavy artillery manoeuvres in support of infantry training until some years ago, although the Ministry of Defence has informed me that it has no record of that taking place. It is agreed that the area has been restricted to the use of lighter weaponry in recent times. However, there is some evidence of relatively new white phosphorous bomb rounds being found on the range. In any case, other unexploded ordnanceperhaps from years agoremains at Dol Dol, which is in the Masai tribal lands. The Masai are again, of course, a nomadic pasturalist people, and thousands of them live in the area.
	Incidents that cause the sort of injuries that I have described mostly involve children herding the family animals. They come across the bombs and pick them up. A significant proportion of the ordnance is still dangerous and, for the unlucky ones, the bombs blow up, killing, maiming and burning them. In one incident, a child was evaporated because the explosion was so intense. We know that since 1940 at least 55 people have been killed and 101 injured in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas. The actual figures are estimated to be two or three times higher because many of the victims and their families are too scared of the Government to raise the issue.
	We know that the British Army was in charge of the Archer's Post range until independence, by which time there had already been many deaths and injuries, and unexploded ordnance was left uncleared. Since 1991, the Kenyan army, lacking resources, has not had the capacity to use the range to any significant extent, so for 30 of the last 57 years, almost all the bombs and shells fired have been British. Evidence suggests that even in the 1970s and 1980s, the British used far more ammunition than did the Kenyans. Throughout the entire period, injuries and deaths among local people have continued.
	Apart from the proportion of range times and the overall quantities of ammunition used by our Army, there is another reason to believe that our ordnance is responsible for a high percentage of the injuries. I refer to the way in which we use the ranges, particularly Archer's Post, compared with the methods used by the Kenyan army. There is a big difference. The British Army trains its soldiers in combat conditions that are as realistic as possible, so our artillery and mortars are aimed just ahead of where the soldiers are training. That means that the munitions land, and mostly explode, in the flatter areas of the range where, if they do not blow up, they are more likely to be found by the children of the nomadic tribes. When it could afford to test its artillery, the Kenyan army fired into the hills, where there have been no reports of accidents to date.
	A preliminary report by David Taylor, a leading expert on unexploded ordnance, was commissioned by solicitors representing the victims and their families. It highlighted the fact that the Ministry of Defence accepts that, owing to those differing modes of operation, it left more bombs on site in low-lying areas than the Kenyan army is likely to have done. Taylor states that some and possibly all of the unexploded ordnance encountered is of British origin and would have been used by the British Army in live firing exercises. The implication is that British munitions were responsible for a significant proportion, and possibly all, of the deaths and injuries caused by unexploded ordnance in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas.
	That leads us to the next question. Is the British Army doing everything that it can to prevent children from being blown to bits when they follow their parents' cattle or simply play in those areas? Are they kept out of the area during training and afterwards, when clearance is under way? Are the unexploded shells and bombs properly cleared after the training sessions?

Gerald Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, I was a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as was the former Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, Christopher Fraser. A couple of years ago, we went to Mpala farm, which is part of the territory to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, to undertake live firing exercises. Our impression was that the British Army was very careful to ensure that nobody strayed to the range. Indeed, because of the noise, it would have been difficult not to realise that the firing was taking place. The British Army takes its responsibilities seriously, and the military training that it undertakes is not only vital to Britain but a great asset to the Kenyan Government.

Martin Caton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. I think that the Kenyan Government welcome the activity. However, there is a lot of evidence that the Masai and other nomadic tribespeople do not view the use of the training areas as entirely beneficial.
	There is evidence of people being able to get on to the ranges even when live firing is taking place, although that is not the substance of my speech. The solicitor representing the tribal people who are likely to take action against the British Government managed to get into one of the training areas when live firing was taking place, so I do not think that we should be complacent.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me if I paraphrase the Ministry of Defence position, according to written answers that I have received to parliamentary questions and information that I have read elsewhere. I am sure that he will correct me if I have misunderstood the Ministry's line, but I understand it to be saying that the clearance of munitions in training areas is the responsibility of the host nation, so it is up to the Kenyan Government to make the ranges safe for their tribespeople. The Ministry admits that it has become aware of civilian casualties recently. The date quoted is 1999, and frankly I find that incredible. I shall return to that point in a moment.
	The Army says that since it found out what has been happening, it has been helping to spread information and assisting with the clear-up operation. In a written reply to me, my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the large concrete signs outside live firing areas, with words of warning in English and Samburu. However, that does not take account of the fact that a majority of even the adult tribespeople, let alone the children, cannot read. Referring to Archer's Post, he informed me that
	the nomadic tribespeople have been grazing their animals in the area for a considerable number of years and are aware that some of the area is a . . . live firing military range as it has been for many years.
	That begs the biggest question. If that is the case, why are people being blown up? In any case, that statement does not seem to lie comfortably with the other point that my right hon. Friend drew to my attentionthat
	range wardens employed throughout the year by the British Army instruct the local population about the dangers posed during live firing and from touching unexploded ordnance.[Official Report, 16 July 2001; Vol. 372, c. 3W.]
	If that is necessary, it is clearly accepted that not all the tribespeople are already aware of the danger. Sadly, it appears from reports in the Kenyan media that most tribespeople are equally unaware of the work of those rangers. There is also evidence that people can and do get into the training areas where live ammunition is being fired.
	It is true that the British Army started to carry out an annual clean-up operation last year. It is named Operation Pineapple. To date, 380 bombs have been collected, but my right hon. Friend informed me that only 64 sq km of the 1,500 sq km of the range have been cleared.

Ross Cranston: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on raising an important subject. Does he agree that the House needs reassurance about what the British Army is doing in terms of clear-up? Whatever happened in the past, if our right hon. Friend can set out in detail what the British Army is doing now, we would be much reassured.

Martin Caton: My hon. and learned Friend is right. That is the core issue, although there are related issues that I shall briefly address.
	Our Army paid local people to help with the clear-up. About 60 people were employed at 2 a day each. The operation took 25 days, providing a sum total of 3,000 to the local economy. One cannot help asking whether that is the price that we are paying for six local children killed or maimed a year.
	I return to the British Army claim that it was not aware of the problem of civilian casualties until 1999. That does not hold water. We have been in the area for more than 50 years. Until 1964 we were in sole charge of the range. Deaths and injuries were occurring then, too. British Army officers have given evidence at inquests into the deaths of locals killed by unexploded ordnance over many years. The deaths and injuries have continued at a fairly steady rate over those years. There are reports of British Army personnel taking injured children to hospital in 1986 and after. It stretches credulity too far to claim that our Army was entirely ignorant of those deaths and injuries until 1999.
	What actually happened, I believe, is that by 1999 media interest was focusing on British activity in that part of Kenya and local representatives were investigating the possibility of legal action against the UK Government. That was the real impetus for the response that we have seen in the past couple of years. That legal action looks set to go ahead within weeks and there seems to be a very strong case indeed.
	Tonight, I am not speaking about legalities or about whether the law is enough of an ass to decide that a poor country such as Kenya must pick up the tab in the end, even though the injuries were caused by British munitions and the United Kingdom is a rich country, far better able, in every sense, to deal with the problem. I am not trying to preview the proceedings that may take place in the British courts on the issue this year. However, if we examine international laws and conventions, I cannot help wondering whether our activity in the Archer's Post and Dol Dol areas complies with article 28 of the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which states:
	Military operations shall not take place in the lands and territories of indigenous peoples unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the people concerned. Hazardous material shall not be stored or disposed of on the land of indigenous peoples. Governments shall take measures to assist indigenous peoples whose health has been affected by such material.
	Both the Masai and the Samburu are classified as minority groups in a state set-upa classification that is recognised in various international human rights instruments. These people have certainly not freely agreed to the use of their tribal territories for the military operations. Apart from the mutilation of their children, they blame the military activity in their areas for considerable environmental damage that undermines their traditional grazing patterns.
	I recognise that this is ultimately an issue for the Kenyan Government, but I do not believe that we can wash our hands of all responsibility if we know or believe that our Army is involved in activity that could be undermining the basic human rights of these indigenous peoples. I do not know whether that is, or will be, a matter for law, but that is not the main point that I have been trying to make. I have tried to concentrate on our moral responsibility.
	I want my Government to be talking the language that they were talking back in 1998 when we were discussing the land mines question. I want us to value the lives of these Kenyan children as we value the lives of the children who live near Salisbury plain or any other British range. As we know that we have it in our power to repay our debt to the victims, their families and communities and to prevent these terrible incidents from happening again, surely we have a duty to act.

Adam Ingram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) for securing a debate on this important subject. I also thank him for the series of written questions that he has tabled, which I have answered in full.
	While we should recognise the emotive and sensitive nature of the issue, it is equally important for us to set it in a factual context. This debate allows me to place on record an explanation of how the British Army conducts its training in Kenya, to demonstrate that we are taking all reasonable measures to ensure that that training is conducted as safely as possible and to dispel any enduring misunderstandings. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) for pointing out that that is an important part of the debate.
	My Department has received notification that a number of Kenyans will be making claims for compensation as a result of injuries allegedly suffered as a consequence of the use of training areas in Kenya by the British Army. Clearly, any accident caused by unexploded ordnance is a matter for great regret, and I do not want to minimise that fact in any way. However, no one should claim a monopoly on understanding the suffering of the victims or their families.
	My Department will deal with any claims in accordance with its usual procedures, and pay compensation if its legal liability is proven. In the circumstances, my hon. Friend will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the particulars of the claims at this stage.
	I hope that my hon. Friend shares my view that our armed forces need to be able to operate safely and effectively anywhere in the world, and that in order to achieve that, they need to train in the widest variety of environments and climates. The British Army has used training areas in Kenya for many years. The facilities provided to us by the Kenyans provide it with excellent opportunities to conduct training in a variety of arduous conditions, including arid and jungle environments. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) alluded to his short experience of visiting a training area, and I am grateful to him for his contribution.
	Some 3,000 British troops train in Kenya each year. The number of troops exercising at any one time tends to vary between 100 and 750. They are supported by the British Army training liaison staff Kenya, who comprise 10 permanent staff, 27 temporary duty staff and 144 full-time locally employed staff. In addition, we also employ more than 100 part-time locally engaged staff on an as-required basis.
	I am grateful to the Kenyan Government for providing us with these vital training opportunities. If we cannot train in those conditions, we cannot operate in them. Many of the regiments that have run our short-term training teams in Sierra Leone previously trained in Kenya. Indeed, the 1st Battalion, the Light Infantry, which was in Sierra Leone until recently, was in Kenya earlier this year. All those regiments were able to perform their demanding and crucial tasks and make a significant contribution to peace in Sierra Leone, thanks to the experiences that they gained by exercising in places such as Kenya.
	We use nine separate training areas in Kenya, and they offer a variety of environments and conditions. TwoArcher's Post and Dol Dolare managed by the Kenyan Department of Defence; Kathendini is managed by the Kenyan wildlife service, and the remaining six are on privately owned land, under arrangements with the individual landowners. The activities that we undertake differ from area to area. For example, at Solio and Lewa Downs, we primarily carry out acclimatisation training. Dol Dol is used for company and platoon-level dry training. Archer's Post is used for collective battalion- level training, which involves some live firing. Each six-week detachment to Kenya will train in several areas before coming together for two weeks of collective training at Archer's Post. In general, we do not use each area for more than five or six weeks each calendar year.
	In addition to the three battle group exercises, which are known as Grand Prix and take place every year between October and April, several smaller exercises at troop, company or squadron level also occur. They include engineering troop and squadron exercises, a medical squadron exercise and an explosive ordnance disposal squadron exercise. Each takes place annually. In addition to providing us with excellent training opportunities, the engineering and medical exercises give direct support to the Kenyan community through local construction projects and the provision, through links with a non-governmental organisation, of primary health care to the local community.
	Before I talk about the clearance exercises, I shall explain that in Kenya, the British Army trains using live ammunition at Archer's Post and on some privately owned land, with the agreement of the landowners. That training is conducted in accordance with both British Army and local regulations. On the other hand, we use Dol Dol as a dry range, and do not conduct live firing there. The only ammunition we use there, and at other dry training areas, is blank rounds and thunderflash noise simulators.
	Let me explain the measures that we have put in place to ensure that the British Army's use of training areas in Kenya is as safe as possible. Safety is paramount in all aspects of British Army training, including the use of live ammunition. Strict regulations, applicable both in the UK and overseas, govern the issue, carriage, firing and clearance of live ammunition. We aim to declare, record and, when possible, destroy unexploded ordnance as soon as possible after it has been fired. That is the case wherever we trainand it is achieved by the troops who exercise with live ammunition, who sweep the area visually before departing from a training area.
	Depending on the terrain of the training area, there is, of course, always the possibility that a small percentage of unexploded munitions may not be located immediately. I hope that my hon. Friend will be interested to note that it is normal practice for the host nation to be responsible for the clearance of military training areas, and that the practice is followed in Kenya for the facilities managed by the Kenyan Department of Defence.
	That does not apply to privately owned land, and for many years the British Army has cleared any unexploded ordnance from such land in Kenya, as required by our arrangements with local landowners. That takes place during Exercise Pineapple, to which my hon. Friend referred. It occurs annually at the end of the exercise season in Kenya.
	In May 2000, the 30-man team conducting the clearance work on private land mounted a small clearance operation at Archer's Post to support the Kenyan Department of Defence. As a result of that initial work, we have increased our support to the Kenyans, and in May this year some 100 Royal Engineers specialists participated in a similar exercise. As my hon. Friend said, a total of 64 sq km of the most heavily used parts of the area were cleared. Some 271 items of live ammunition were destroyed and therefore made safe. A list of those items will be examined by ammunition experts to establish the provenance of munitions. Given that several armies train in Kenya, that may take time.
	I must also add that it is unlikely that we will establish with any certainty who fired all the munitions, given that some of the ammunition was old and without markings. That differs from my hon. Friend's argument, and I hope that he notes the position.
	Clearly, we also have an interest in ensuring that the conduct of military training in Kenya is carried out in as safe a manner as possible. To achieve this, we work alongside the Kenyans, who retain overall responsibility for range safety. Specifically, we continue to provide infrastructure support and range wardens, and to educate the local population about range safety. I would like to take this opportunity to explain a little more about that aspect of the work.
	Our staff in Kenya liaise closely with the Kenyan Department of Defence, the district administration and local leaders to ensure that local communities know where and when we train. We take every possible precaution to minimise danger to the Kenyan people. We conduct helicopter sweeps of the danger areas before commencing training, to check that the areas are clear of people and livestock. After training, the troops mount visual searches of the impact areas to ensure that, as far as possible, any unexploded ordnance is disposed of or clearly marked.
	We have also built and equipped a range control building at Archer's Post that is manned whenever we use the training area. We liaise with other users of the range to ensure that all troops using the area use the same safety procedures. We employ and train Kenyan range wardens, whose job it is to control access to the training area when firing is in progress. The wardens also travel between the communities near Archer's Post and the indigenous population that roams in the area, to educate local people about the dangers posed by entering the training area during live firing, and by touching unexploded ordnance. We also deploy British personnel, and we fly danger flags at Archer's Post when we are training.
	I had wanted to make some further points, but my hon. Friend took slightly longer than I had anticipated because of the interventions. I have tried to set out the range of activities in which we are involved in connection with the use of the ranges, and to explain why they are important in terms of training our own forces. That has also been recognised by others when our forces are deployed in humanitarian and peaceful initiatives. I have also tried to explain the safety measures that have been put in place.
	I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend of the genuine, sincere and determined way in which we are tackling this issue. We benefit from the use of these ranges from a training perspective, and the Kenyans benefit in many other ways. I have tried to respond to the debate in a structured and informative way. However, if my hon. Friend feels that he needs more information, I suggest that he writes to me during the recess, and I shall do my best to help him.

Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that the British troops have every interest in ensuring that the ordnance is cleared? If it is not cleared, it poses a real danger to our troops.

Adam Ingram: Absolutely. Ours is not the only Army that uses that particular range, and as my hon. Friend said, the Kenyans have a responsibility as well.
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at thirteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Deferred Divisions
	  
	Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 200102, and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 200102 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.
	The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 179.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Social Security

That the draft Social Security (Literacy Etc. Skills Training Pilot) Regulations 2001, which were laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 178.

Question accordingly agreed to.